ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Falkland Islands

Michael Fabricant: What recent assessment he has made of the readiness of British forces based in the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Robathan: My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is, as we speak, en route to Australia with the Foreign Secretary to attend the Australia and UK ministerial talks, and sends his apologies both to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House.
	Before I answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) I am sure that he and the whole House would like to join me in paying tribute to Sapper Richard Walker, who was killed in Afghanistan last Monday. Sapper Walker was, by all accounts, an impressive young soldier. The loss felt by his colleagues, friends and family is unimaginable and a reminder of the difficult and dangerous job that our brave armed forces do every day. I was in Afghanistan last week and saw for myself the real progress that is being made in helping the Afghans take responsibility for their own security, which in turn protects us here at home. We honour Sapper Walker’s sacrifice and send our heartfelt condolences to his family.
	Turning to the question, the Ministry of Defence keeps force levels in the south Atlantic under constant review to ensure that we retain appropriate levels of defensive capabilities. We retain the ability to reinforce the Falkland Islands should the need arise.

Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will know that there is increased sabre-rattling from President Cristina Kirchner and that on 11 March there will be a referendum in the Falklands regarding their future status. Does he think and is he confident that our present armed forces on the Falkland Islands can defend the islands, and are we capable of quick reinforcement should that be necessary?

Andrew Robathan: We all hope and, indeed, expect that the referendum will reinforce the relationship between Britain and the Falkland Islands. This is, of course, a Falkland Islands Government initiative. On the ability to defend the Falklands, we have—this is all in the public domain—four Typhoon aircraft, a company of soldiers, a south Atlantic guard ship and, of course,
	submarines, but we do not comment on where they are to be found. I am confident that we can defend the islands and we also have Mount Pleasant airfield for immediate reinforcement by air.

David Crausby: In the event that the Argentines should illegally occupy the Falkland Islands again, what assistance does the Minister expect from French military forces in expelling any invaders? Has he had any discussions with his European counterparts with regard to their assistance this time around?

Andrew Robathan: First, I think it highly unlikely that the Argentines will invade the Falkland Islands, not least because I understand that there is a clause in Argentina’s constitution that specifically excludes invading the Falkland Islands or taking them by force. I have not had any discussions with the French on this matter and nor do I think has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Bob Stewart: Further to that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Argentine armed forces are pretty much incapable of invading the Falkland Islands? Their submarines have been underwater for only six hours each this year and most of their aircraft are grounded through lack of spares and lack of training.

Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, since the days of General Galtieri, there has been a definite separation between the civilian Government and the armed forces. Certainly, it does not appear—although one should not be complacent—that their armed forces are well equipped at the moment.

Mali

Mel Stride: What recent discussions he has had with European Defence Ministers on the security situation in Mali.

Andrew Robathan: The UK has been heavily involved in discussions on Mali, both in multilateral institutions and bilaterally for many months. Over the weekend, we responded swiftly to a request from the French for logistical assistance by making available two C-17 transport aircraft. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who has responsibility for Africa, will make a statement to the House on the situation in Mali later this afternoon.

Mel Stride: I met recently with my constituent, Caroline Hart, who, through the Joliba Trust, has done a great deal to alleviate suffering in Mali. One of her and her colleagues’ main concerns on the ground in that country is the widespread abuse of human rights on all sides of the conflict. Will my right hon. Friend please set out the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that human rights are at the centre of what we do as we engage in that conflict?

Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Mali is not a country that is renowned for good human rights. The rebel forces, who appear to be Islamist and linked to al-Qaeda, are likely to carry out even
	worse abuses than anything that has been seen before. We are supporting our French allies in Mali, in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 2087. I know that everybody at the United Nations will be concerned about human rights, as is everybody in this Government.

Jim Murphy: The Opposition share in the tribute offered by the Minister to Sapper Walker and his family at this dreadful time, following his loss in Afghanistan.
	The situation in Mali is grave, with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb controlling huge swathes of the country. Unchecked, that could become a real threat to the UK and to others. That is why we support the action that is being taken. However, can the Minister spell out the full list of military capabilities that have been offered to the French, and will he rule out the deployment of additional UK military assets in response to the Mali crisis?

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his condolences to Sapper Walker’s family and for his support for our action in supporting the French. We gave the C-17 aircraft in response to a request from the French for support. They have not asked for any further assets, nor have we offered them. At the moment, we have no plans to deploy any ground forces to Mali.

Menzies Campbell: I support with enthusiasm this well-timed illustration of European co-operation and hope that it is the harbinger of things to come. May I ask my right hon. Friend a number of questions about the military aspects?

Mr Speaker: One question.

Menzies Campbell: Who will have command and control of the aircraft? Without going into details, will adequate and proper intelligence be provided? Since the French do not operate C-17s, is it the intention to deploy ground crew in support of the aircraft?

Andrew Robathan: Buy one, get three free. First, I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about European co-operation. This matter gives the lie to those who say that we do not co-operate with our European allies and friends. I am getting lost thinking about what questions he asked. On whether we have adequate intelligence, the French have intelligence. We are sending our C-17s only into remote Bamako, the capital. We are sending C-17s because they are an asset that the French cannot replicate, so they have to charter such aircraft. I cannot remember what the third question was. [Hon. Members: “Ground crew.”] I do not believe that we are putting in a substantial ground crew, but I am sure that some people will be on the ground briefly. This deployment has a limited time scale of one week, although that could increase.

Armed Forces Covenant

Andrew Stephenson: What discussions his Department has had with other Government Departments on supporting the armed forces covenant.

Peter Aldous: What discussions his Department has had with other Government Departments on supporting the armed forces covenant.

Mark Francois: The covenant is a matter for the whole of Government and sustained progress requires close working across Whitehall. To oversee that work and maintain the momentum, a Cabinet Sub-Committee on the armed forces covenant was established in February 2012, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Government Policy. The Committee met four times in 2012. It works closely with the covenant reference group, which includes representation from the service community and a number of key service charities, as well as armed forces advocates from Departments and the devolved Administrations.

Andrew Stephenson: Specifically with regard to co-operation with the Department of Health, will the Minister say what is being done to improve mental health provision for those who are serving and for veterans?

Mark Francois: I assure the House that we work very closely with our colleagues in the Department of Health on these important issues. We have delivered improvements in mental health care provision, including greater access to mental health care for up to six months after discharge, an increase in the number of veterans’ mental health nurses, a 24-hour helpline, and a support and advice website, popularly known as the Big White Wall, which has proved popular with veterans, including some of those facing these challenges.

Peter Aldous: Given that about 300 out of the 430 local authorities, including Suffolk county council and Waveney district council, have signed a community covenant between the civilian and armed forces communities in their area, does the Minister agree that it would be fantastic if all Departments and local authorities that are yet to sign such a covenant did so by Armed Forces day on 29 June?

Mark Francois: I am encouraged by the number of local authorities around the country that have signed community covenants and pledged to do their best for armed forces communities, the families of those who are serving and veterans. It would be fantastic if local authorities were to sign up by that date, but we should not have to wait until then—the more the merrier and the sooner the better.

Lyn Brown: In the Government’s annual covenant report, forces federations state that they
	“remain deeply concerned at the cumulative effect of the impact of the pay freeze for many, allowances cuts, including significant and sudden reductions in overseas allowances that have been imposed on families mid-tour, and changes to pensions indexing.”
	Is it not the case that, although the Government have enshrined the covenant in law, their actions simply undermine it?

Mark Francois: I do not accept that last assertion. It is true that we have enshrined the key principles of the armed forces covenant in law, and I was proud to be one
	of those who served on the Armed Forces Bill Committee, which helped bring that process to fruition. I work closely with the Army Families Federation; in fact, one of my first appointments as a Minister in the Department was to go and talk to 300 Army wives at the AFF conference. I listen carefully to what it says and will continue to do so.

Gemma Doyle: I welcome the publication of the report and note the comments of service charities on the covenant reference group, who state:
	“We continue to hope that, in line with the 2010 Coalition Agreement, the Government will use any efficiencies and other monies that become available within the MoD budget, to invest in”
	decent homes. Was it not therefore deeply careless that the Ministry of Defence very nearly had to surrender a reported underspend of hundreds of millions of pounds to the Treasury at the end of last year? Why did it not allocate at least part of it to housing, and will it do so now?

Mark Francois: As the hon. Lady will know, some months ago we injected an additional £100 million for housing back into the programme, and we need to ensure that that money is well spent. I take a particularly close interest in the quality of service accommodation. At the AFF conference, which I mentioned in my previous answer, one serviceman raised with me an issue about the poor quality of his quarter, and two weeks later I went and knocked on his door to see it for myself. I cannot promise to do that for every serviceman who raises an issue, but I take the matter seriously and will most certainly continue to do so.

Bob Russell: The reality and the rhetoric of the armed forces covenant are such that there is a feeling of betrayal in the Colchester garrison. In 1997, there were 33 Ministry of Defence police officers there looking after the Army married quarters and Army schools. In April, the last MOD police officer will be made redundant. May I urge the Minister at the very least to reinstate some MOD police at the Colchester garrison?

Mark Francois: As ever, my hon. Friend mentions Colchester, which I know he represents vociferously on these matters. I have already had a meeting with the chief constable of the MOD police and one with the Defence Police Federation to discuss issues such as the profile of manning at sites. I am also planning in the near future to visit RAF Wethersfield, where, as my hon. Friend knows, the MOD police are based, and I intend to continue the dialogue at that meeting.

Nicholas Dakin: Does the Minister share my concern that Army regulars, including those serving in Afghanistan, reservists and trainees are likely to be badly affected by the Government’s bedroom tax, which goes against the whole direction of the covenant?

Mark Francois: I am not sure that the effect will be exactly as the hon. Gentleman outlines, but he raises a specific issue, and to do it proper justice I will look into it when I get back to the Department and write to him about it.

British Defence Exports

Gavin Williamson: What support he has given to the promotion of British defence exports.

Philip Dunne: Under this Government, there has been a sea change in both attitude and activity in support of responsible defence exports. There has been a concerted effort by senior ministerial colleagues, from the Prime Minister downwards, to support British defence exports by promoting proven British equipment. The announcement just before Christmas of the sale of 12 Typhoon and 8 Hawk aircraft to Oman is a good example.

Gavin Williamson: Often when we talk about defence exports, we mean big deals by large companies, but as my hon. Friend will know from when he visited Oldbury UK in my constituency, many small and medium-sized businesses are involved in the defence sector. What additional support and encouragement is he giving to small and medium-sized enterprises to consider exporting more?

Philip Dunne: I was pleased that my hon. Friend was able to accompany me on my visit to the firm in his constituency to which he referred. I have been appointed the SME champion in the Ministry of Defence. Where possible I am seeking to raise the emphasis on procurement —both direct and through our prime contractors—towards SMEs, given the source of innovation that they so often provide. The next SME forum, which I shall be chairing shortly, will focus its activities on how we can improve export prospects for SMEs.

Andrew Gwynne: Notwithstanding the Minister’s answer that he is an SME champion in the MOD, does he not see it as incompatible with his Government’s default position to buy off the shelf rather than seek greater exports from British industry? Will he commit to giving extra effort and support to UK sovereign companies?

Philip Dunne: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, some larger procurements within the MOD cannot, by definition, be directed towards SMEs—the contract size is such that if it were awarded, the company would cease to be an SME. That said, the White Paper published in February last year made a specific pledge towards open procurement and to encourage the purchase of matériel through competitive process. That is the best way to maintain a fit industrial base in this country that is capable of exporting and winning orders through competition. Alongside that was a commitment to increase the proportion of goods purchased from SMEs.

UK/French Expeditionary Forces (Interoperability)

George Eustice: What recent progress he has made on improving the interoperability of UK and French expeditionary forces.

Andrew Robathan: Following the 2010 Lancaster House treaties and operations in Libya, interoperability with France continues to improve—indeed, I have further examples of co-operation
	with our French allies. Two weeks ago, a Royal Navy helicopter operating from a French frigate as a part of Operation Atalanta played a significant role in the arrest of 12 Somali pirates. As I said, last weekend at the request of President Hollande we agreed to provide two RAF C-17s to support the deployment of French troops and equipment to Mali. We are working successfully to establish the combined joint expeditionary force—CJEF—which is planned to reach full operating capability in 2016. In the longer term we are taking forward a comprehensive portfolio of co-operation on equipment and capabilities that will provide both nations with the capabilities to meet the needs of our expeditionary forces including, for instance, unmanned aerial vehicles and missiles known as complex weapons.

George Eustice: In the light of events in recent days in Mali and British logistical support for the French operation there, will the Minister say a little more about what is being done to improve co-operation specifically on the sharing and deployment of military equipment?

Andrew Robathan: On the deployment of military equipment, we are using the C-17s to deploy French military equipment. On joint working, we are particularly looking at Watchkeeper—an unmanned aerial vehicle—and future combat air systems, which are looking at very complex issues. We are also, of course, working together on the A400M.

Thomas Docherty: In October 2010 the Prime Minister said that switching to the F-35C would increase operability with the French carrier. Given that the French do not have the right weapons, that their pilots would not be trained on the F-35, and that the F-35 could not land or take off on the Charles de Gaulle, what exactly did the Prime Minister mean?

Andrew Robathan: Switching variant does not make any difference to whether or not the aircraft could land on the Charles de Gaulle. We are co-operating with the Charles de Gaulle and we do not see the two aircraft carriers as being interoperable; we see them as separate but linked assets, and we certainly support the French. Indeed, during Exercise Corsican Lion, the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) and I had lunch on the Charles de Gaulle, and very good it was too. I assure hon. Members that we discussed equipment, interoperability and other matters.

Reserves Green Paper

John Baron: What support he has received from major employers for the proposals set out in his Reserves Green Paper.

Jack Lopresti: What support he has received from major employers for the proposals set out in his Reserves Green Paper.

Mark Francois: As I informed the House on 26 November a number of large companies have shown their support
	for our reservists and the Green Paper consultation process. Some have held their own reserves awareness events. We have received over 2,400 responses to the consultation to date—not all from my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier)—and we held a workshop on 11 January with major employers and the Secretary of State. We continue to engage with major employers, but also with medium-sized and small businesses, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and other employer organisations to ensure that we capture the views of as broad a range of employers as possible.

John Baron: I thank the Minister for that response, but the Government will know that I think it unwise to disband regular infantry battalions, such as 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, before first being certain that the reservists can plug the gap. What objective measures exist for Parliament to gauge the progress of Government plans in this regard?

Mark Francois: I acknowledge the strong interest that my hon. Friend has taken in the fate of his old regiment. I think that the whole House can understand his motivation for doing that. Our plan is for the Army to achieve its full strength of 30,000 trained volunteer reservists in 2018 from its current trained and in-training volunteer reservist strength of 25,000. These are early days, but I am delighted that the recent tri-service recruiting campaigns have produced a 25% increase in Territorial Army inquiries and that regular Army enlistment is up by 3% against a three-year rolling average. We regard both those statistics as good news.

Jack Lopresti: What steps will be taken to ensure that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to employers and reservists, and that instead the Government will consider factors such as the size and complexity of the business?

Mark Francois: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who, as many in the House will know, was mobilised and saw active service on behalf of his country on Operation Herrick and therefore clearly understands this issue very well. I stress to him that we considered this question carefully in the consultation, and we are mindful that, proportionally, for some smaller and medium-sized employers it is a greater challenge to let reservists go and be deployed than it is for some larger organisations. We have been talking to employers about it and intend to set out the way forward when we publish the White Paper in the spring.

Julie Hilling: Will the Government legislate to ensure that employers cannot discriminate against reservists in their hiring policies, promotion or in other ways in the workplace?

Mark Francois: I understand exactly the hon. Lady’s question, and we will lay out our proposals when we publish the White Paper in the spring. At the moment, our instinct is not to legislate and to try and persuade, but we understand the difficulty and will address the issue specifically when we publish the White Paper.

Luciana Berger: Will the Minister tell the House how many reservists he expects to be on extended readiness at any one time?

Mark Francois: Again, we will lay out the exact profile for how we intend to deploy the reserves when we publish the White Paper. We should bear it in mind that the process will run for several years. Again, the answer will be addressed when we publish the White Paper in the spring, but I stress to the House how seriously we take this process. To use an old Army term, we will publish the White Paper, then cross the start line and get on with it.

Patrick Mercer: What incentives are being offered to regular soldiers, upon discharge or redundancy, to join the volunteer reserve?

Mark Francois: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and say in passing that I look forward to visiting the Newark patriotic fund in his constituency later this week. On the question about incentives, I hope that the House will forgive me if again I pray in aid the White Paper. We are considering the issue as we prepare our plan, which we will lay out in the spring, and I can assure him that we are mindful of his point.

Kevan Jones: We know that the Government are reducing the size of the regular Army, with the constant issuing of redundancy notices to members of our armed forces. There is clearly a concern that there will be a gap between regular service personnel and the new plans for reservists coming into place. How confident is the Minister that reservists will be able to meet those demands and that he can get employers to release reservists covered by the present legislation?

Mark Francois: I hope that I have already mentioned the point about legislation in an earlier answer. With regard to numbers, we continue to manage the growth in the Army reserve and the reduction in regular numbers closely. Beyond the end of operations in Afghanistan, these trajectories will be kept under close review to ensure that we can take early action to maintain an appropriate force level to meet our planning assumptions.

Afghanistan

Karl McCartney: What recent discussions he has had with his international security assistance force partners on the draw-down of combat troops from Afghanistan.

Andrew Robathan: The timing and number of troop draw-down is a matter for individual countries, in discussion with the international security assistance force. However, we have regular and routine discussions with a number of our NATO and ISAF allies on a range of issues, including force levels in Afghanistan. With our allies, we remain committed to the strategy and time scales agreed at the NATO Lisbon summit in 2010. We also stand firmly by our commitments made at the Chicago summit in May, and we will continue to support the Afghan national security forces long after 2014 when our combat mission ends. As the ANSF continue to grow in capability and capacity, and increasingly take the security lead throughout Afghanistan, it is right that ISAF nations gradually draw down their force levels.

Karl McCartney: Can the Minister elaborate on the Department’s definition of combat troops? Perhaps more importantly, could he elucidate for the House the definition of non-combat troops—and will this change after 2014?

Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend asks a very good question. I was in Afghanistan last week. We envisage the primary role of British forces after 2014 to be assisting, mentoring and teaching at the Afghan national officer academy in Qargha outside Kabul. Beyond that, after 2014, we do not envisage any combat troops being involved in what one might describe as face-to-face operations with the enemy; we see them—if at all—in a mentoring capacity only.

Paul Flynn: As the President of the United States and President Karzai met last week and were reported to have discussed accelerating the process of the withdrawal of troops, will the Government consider following the policies of the Netherlands and Canada and bring our troops home earlier?

Andrew Robathan: We work in close co-operation with the Americans and other ISAF allies, and we have a sensible trajectory to withdraw all our combat troops by the end of next year. We are already not involved in the face-to-face operations in which we were involved two years’ ago, and we are witnessing a thankful reduction in our casualties. We do not intend to bring our troops out early. We think that that would be a great disadvantage to peace in Afghanistan.

Nick Harvey: May I ask my right hon. Friend about the process of packing up and getting our kit out of Afghanistan and bringing it home? How long will that take? When will it begin and finish? How many troops will be tied up in that logistical task rather than the combat task? How much kit are we going to leave behind?

Mr Speaker: That was three or four questions. I shall indulge the former Minister—he is a knighted one, I note—but I know that the Minister will provide a pithy reply.

Andrew Robathan: That is the second time today that I have been asked more than one question from the Liberal Democrat Benches. My hon. Friend is right to say that the withdrawal of our large amount of equipment in Afghanistan is a big issue. We are in negotiations with the Pakistanis and hope that we will be able to bring a great deal more back through the Pakistan land route than we are currently capable of doing. We expect to bring almost all our equipment out, although some may be gifted to the Afghans when we leave.

Julian Lewis: Does the Minister recall that the Secretary of State recently revealed to the House that there was a possibility that the Americans might take over Camp Bastion? Can he update the House on this matter, given that without the maintenance of one or more regional strategic bases, our interests in the area may well unravel after 2014?

Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend asks a good and searching question. Camp Bastion has had a great deal of investment. Notwithstanding the recent attack, it is a
	sensible place to have a base as it easily defensible, and we are in negotiations with the Americans and the Afghans on its future. I have no answer to give my hon. Friend at the moment, but I will keep him updated and, when there is a definite answer, I will write to him and let him know.

Middle East

Robert Halfon: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Murrison: Demands for greater political, social and economic participation continue in the middle east and north Africa. The situation in Syria continues to deteriorate and we are supporting efforts to deliver a political solution to the conflict. The UK also remains concerned over Iran’s nuclear programme and continues to work with other countries to achieve a diplomatic solution to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. In short, we assess that the regional security situation is fragile.

Robert Halfon: General Sir David Richards is reported as being seriously concerned that Syria’s chemical weapons could soon be either used or lost into the hands of terrorists. Will my hon. Friend set out to the House the preparations made by NATO to prevent Assad’s use of chemical weapons?

Andrew Murrison: We have made it perfectly clear to President Assad that the use of these dreadful weapons is absolutely unacceptable. We know where they are, we have defined and delineated them, and we have plans to deal with them in the event that the regime falls, as ultimately it must. We are also in talks with the country’s neighbours to ensure that these weapons do not find their way into the hands of third parties. We look forward to a more enlightened regime in Syria that has no use for biological and chemical warfare and that will comply with its international obligations.

Mike Gapes: Last week the Foreign Secretary made it clear that consideration is being given in the European Union possibly to lifting the arms embargo on the Syrian opposition. If that were to happen, what kind of equipment would we be supplying and what guarantee do we have that it would not get into the hands of radical, al-Qaeda-linked Islamist groups?

Andrew Murrison: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Foreign Secretary, in Marrakesh at the end of last year, recognised Syrian opposition groups. The United Kingdom would like greater flexibility in the embargo on Syria, so that at some point in the future, possibly, we can supply the opposition groups that we are comfortable with with the means to deal with the situation; but there are no plans to do so at the moment and we will keep the matter under review.

Russell Brown: I am sure the Minister recognises the significance of the previous work of the International Atomic Energy Agency in carrying out nuclear investigations inside Iran. Has he made any assessment of late of the likelihood of such investigations recommencing?

Andrew Murrison: That obviously is a matter for the International Atomic Energy Agency, but the key to this is the imposition of sanctions. I note that the E3 plus 3 will be meeting Iran shortly to discuss those. I am particularly pleased to note that exports of oil from Iran have dropped by 45%. We have seen the consequences of that—the sanctions are working—not least through the hyper-inflation affecting that country at the moment.

Cadet Forces

Fiona Bruce: What steps his Department is taking to increase the number of cadet forces in the UK.

Mark Francois: As announced by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister on armed forces day 2012, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Defence are working together to enable 100 more state-funded schools to have cadet units by 2015. The extra cadet units will be formed through partnerships with existing units or by self-standing new units, both using third- party sponsorship. The Departments have identified £10.85 million to meet the training and equipment costs of the programme. More than 70 state schools have already registered their interest in the programme and the joint departmental team, supported by the reserve forces and cadets associations, will be working with schools to develop the most appropriate cadet option for each individual school.

Fiona Bruce: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he join me in commending the hugely dedicated leaders and committed cadets in my constituency, such as the Air Training Corps in Sandbach and Congleton, particularly the Tigers of 230 Squadron in Congleton ATC? Their dining-in night this week will celebrate another successful year of developing wide-ranging practical skills, confidence and qualifications, not least a clutch of bronze, silver and gold Duke of Edinburgh awards.

Mark Francois: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those units and, indeed, to cadet units across the country, which do so much to foster the right values in our young people. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Leading Cadet A. Green of the Sea Cadets Corps, from the Winsford and Middlewich unit, who was appointed a Lord Lieutenant’s Cadet recently. We commend that cadet too.

Diana Johnson: Private schools account for only 8% of all schools yet have 76% of cadet forces. Will the Minister confirm that, as a matter of urgency, he will switch the majority of the available funding to the state sector?

Mark Francois: As the hon. Lady rightly points out, it is a historical fact that the majority of cadet units in schools have historically been in the independent sector. The non-school cadet units, however, are spread across the whole country. Within schools, the bulk of the funding is focused, as I said in my earlier answer, towards trying to promote cadet units in state schools. Of those 70, a number of the new units, including one at an Essex school in Westcliff, are up and running.

US Defence Policy

Neil Carmichael: What discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on the shift in US defence policy from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Andrew Murrison: Regular discussions on defence policy, including US defence strategy, occur with Ministers both at home and abroad. The Defence Secretary will, for example, meet Secretary Panetta later this month and looks forward to meeting his successor at the earliest opportunity.

Neil Carmichael: When the Defence Secretary meets Chuck Hagel or anyone else who might have been ratified, will he discuss what measures can be used to encourage collaboration so that we can maximise the assets available at the organisation?

Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to make sure we make the best we can out of assets that are under increasing pressure. I note that President Obama’s guidance issued on 5 January last year, “Sustaining US Global Leadership”, set the scene for how US defence is likely to go. I am particularly pleased to see a high degree of correlation between that and our own strategic defence and security review outcomes. We are close to the Americans, and we look forward to the relationship continuing and developing in the future, as they are, as it were, our best friends.

Defence Industrial Base (Scotland)

Glyn Davies: What estimate he has made of the number of people employed in Scotland as part of the defence industrial base.

Philip Dunne: There are over 15,000 military and civilian personnel employed in Scotland, including at the largest single site employer in Scotland, Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde. There are hundreds of contracts with defence companies operating in Scotland, but the Ministry of Defence no longer compiles employment statistics by region within the supply chain, as such information does not directly support either policy making or operations.

Glyn Davies: Does the Minister share my opinion that, from the perspective of the strength of our defence industrial base, from the perspective of job creation and retention and from the perspective of the effective defence of our nation, it is crucial that Scotland remains an integral part of the United Kingdom?

Philip Dunne: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend and neighbour’s view that maintaining Scotland within the United Kingdom will be the best way to maintain defence jobs in Scotland, to maintain a powerful industrial base in engineering and high-technology jobs and to provide Scotland with the best defence capability. The Scottish Government have yet to provide any answers on how they will provide such capability for defence and security in the unlikely event of an independent Scotland.

Angus Robertson: Last week, the UK Government published a paper about Faslane, which was widely reported together with incorrect job projections. Will the Minister dissociate the UK Government and the Better Together campaign from double counting and fabrication on such a serious issue?

Philip Dunne: The hon. Gentleman has clearly been reading information that is simply not emerging from the Ministry of Defence. The base at Faslane is the largest employment site in Scotland, with some 6,700 military and civilian jobs projected to increase by around 8,200 by 2022 as the Royal Navy moves all its submarines there. Those are the numbers.[Official Report, 16 January 2013, Vol. 556, c. 6MC.]

Edward Leigh: Every new procurement Minister promises the House to get a grip on MOD procurement and the costs arising from our defence industrial base. In the light of the latest National Audit Office report that the cost of the MOD’s major projects has risen by a staggering £6.6 billion and is 39 years delayed, what action is the Minister taking?

Mr Speaker: With reference to Scotland, I think.

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend asks what is being done to improve procurement in the MOD. I assure him that it is the top priority in relation to the current year, at least for this procurement Minister. As I said earlier, we do not differentiate between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom when it comes to procurement.
	In my view, the most interesting fact to emerge from the report from the National Audit Office was the improving trend in procurement. A reduction was forecast in the delivery costs of 13 of the 16 projects to which it referred, and 70% of the projected overspend relating to the remaining three related to increased fuel costs up to 2035 over which the MOD had no control whatsoever.

William Bain: Has the Minister had an opportunity to consider last week’s report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, which states that a further 1,500 jobs at Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde could be lost by 2022 if Scotland became a separate state, and that 8,200 jobs relied directly on Scotland’s remaining part of the United Kingdom?

Philip Dunne: I was in Afghanistan with my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I must remind the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) that he is the leader of his party and a very senior parliamentarian. It ill behoves him—and it is beneath his dignity—to yap across the community like an undisciplined puppy. He must conduct himself with decorum. That is what we expect of him. We look up to him, and we want to continue to do so.

Philip Dunne: I was about to explain to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) that unfortunately, as I was in Afghanistan with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces last week, I have not had an opportunity to read the report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, to which I gave evidence before
	Christmas. However, I look forward to reading it, and will certainly look out for the interesting statistic that the hon. Gentleman has revealed.

Topical Questions

Mel Stride: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Andrew Robathan: The Secretary of State’s first priority is and will remain the success of the operation in Afghanistan. Beyond that, his priority is to deliver the military tasks for which the MOD has a mandate. The MOD is also engaged in a major project of transformation to bring about the behavioural change that is needed to maintain a balanced budget, and to deliver equipment programmes so that our armed forces can be confident of being properly equipped and trained. With the benefit of a balanced budget on which to build, we now need to focus on the future and, in particular, on building the trust and confidence of the people who make up defence.

Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern expressed in the recent Defence Committee report on cyber-security in defence. I know that cyber-security is a very sensitive matter, but what can the Minister do to assure the public that we are well and truly on top of it?

Andrew Murrison: The Government will respond to the Select Committee’s report by March, and will take careful note of the issues that it raises. I should point out, however, that way back in 2010 the national security strategy established cyber-security as a tier 1 priority, and that within a very few months it established the national cyber-security programme, which involved expenditure of £650 million over 10 years. I was delighted to note—without being complacent—that the Economist Intelligence Unit recently ranked the UK at No. 1 in terms of preparedness for a cyber attack.[Official Report, 5 February 2013, Vol. 558, c. 3MC.]

Jim Murphy: We all welcome the number of councils that have signed up to the community covenant, which will help to ease the transition from military to civilian life. This morning I was in Dagenham with the council leader, Liam Smith, to launch Labour’s campaign for a veterans champion to be appointed in every council so that service leavers have a single point of contact when they need it. Will the Minister commit the Ministry of Defence to a campaign to encourage the appointment of a forces champion in every local authority in the country, regardless of politics?

Mark Francois: I accept that the proposal is well meant, and I have already met some Labour MPs to discuss it. The actual implementation of the community covenant at ground level is a matter for individual councils, but, as the right hon. Gentleman may know, we have encouraged all councils—within the freedom that they have—to appoint armed forces champions, hopefully at senior level, to champion the needs of the armed forces and
	the veterans community in those local authorities. I am not averse to the suggestion, but the fact is that most councils are already implementing it.

Nick de Bois: The Minister may be aware that last Thursday an exceptional debate on dementia took place in this House, with the consensus being that cross-government working must play its part in helping to meet this challenge of dementia. Will he assure me that the Ministry of Defence will play its part in helping us to meet that challenge?

Mark Francois: Almost one in 10 adults in this country is an armed forces veteran, so clearly the increasing prevalence of dementia has implications for those veterans, too. As I have said in response to other questions, we work very closely with our colleagues in the Department of Health. They have primary responsibility for dealing with this challenge, but of course we also work closely with armed forces charities—the Royal British Legion and many others—to try to provide bespoke services for veterans who are dealing with this challenge in their life.

William Bain: Last week, 1.2 million people lost their entitlement to all or part of their child benefit. Can the Minister say how many people in the armed forces are affected by that change? Will he assure us that every single member of the armed forces has been notified that they would lose all or part of their child benefit?

Andrew Robathan: I think we all regret any reduction in benefits. In the same way that members of the armed forces, such as myself—or my wife, more accurately—are losing child benefit, so we will all lose child benefit if we are paid the relevant amount. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should imagine that members of the armed forces are so ignorant of what is happening in the world that they need to be specially told. They are sensible people who can stand on their own feet and they do not need to be patronised by him.

Nicholas Soames: Will Ministers join me in paying tribute to the service provided by the defence attachés all across the world and to the very important contribution they make to defence diplomacy? Do Ministers agree that defence attachés also have a vital role to play in conflict prevention? Will the Minister make a short report to the House on how that work impinges on their other duties?

Andrew Murrison: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. In the short time I have been a Defence Minister, I have had the privilege of seeing the work of defence attachés in a number of countries and challenging situations. He can be assured that the Government recognise the importance of defence attachés and defence sections. He can also be assured that they will be at the front and centre of the forthcoming defence engagement strategy, which will be the blueprint for how the Government intend to take forward the extraordinarily important things that the attachés do, and the soft diplomacy and defence deliverables they are able to achieve. They will be absolutely at the front and centre.

Madeleine Moon: Ministry of Defence reports in 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2012 showed that the majority of women in the armed forces were
	subject to unwarranted sexual harassment. Such harassment creates a climate in which rape and sexual assault can be prevalent; it creates a climate for these things to take place. What steps is the MOD taking to protect women in the armed forces?

Mark Francois: We take this issue extremely seriously. I know that the hon. Lady knows a lot about it, and I hope that she will not mind my mentioning to the House that she and I met in my office last week for a little over an hour to talk about it in detail. I have had meetings with the Provost Marshal (Army)—the head of the Royal Military Police—to talk about the issue; he was also present at our meeting. I have also had meetings with people such as the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police. So we take this issue very seriously. We absolutely do not tolerate any offences of this kind. When any are reported, they will be most thoroughly investigated. As the hon. Lady knows, we have also been running awareness campaigns to encourage servicemen and women who come across any offence of this type to report it immediately, so that appropriate action can be taken.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I gently say to the House that if we are to get through the list, which I would very much like us to do and as we usually do, we now need short questions and short answers?

Tobias Ellwood: I congratulate the Secretary of State and his ministerial team on the efforts to balance the books, considering what they inherited from the previous Government. That approach is being adopted by the Prime Minister on EU budgets, so will the Minister update the House on the cost and efficiency of the European Defence Agency?

Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that at the last EU defence ministerial in Brussels, the United Kingdom stood alone in insisting on a freeze in the European Defence Agency budget for the third year in a row. The people of this country would think it perverse if we were to make the necessary cuts in defence in this country and then proceeded to vote for an increase in the budget for the European Defence Agency.

John Cryer: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), is the Minister aware that there is a strong public perception that we are seeing a serious escalation in Britain’s role in Syria? Will he assure the House that we will not see any British troops in front-line roles in that country at any point?

Andrew Robathan: We would need a legal basis to intervene in Syria. The humanitarian situation there is appalling, but we would need a legal basis and a clear opposition with whom to work. At the moment, there is no clarity, although we have recognised the National Coalition. We are waiting to see how the international diplomatic and political efforts work as we would rather see a political and diplomatic solution than a military one.

Simon Hughes: May I preface my question by saying that my younger brother is a defence mental health professional? Is the idea that has been around that all serving personnel should have mental health assessments and training being progressed and what progress has been made on it?

Mark Francois: I have been briefed on this specific issue by Professor Simon Wessely and his team at King’s college London, who are internationally renowned as experts in this field. They are researching this specific issue and we are awaiting the outcome of that research. I know you want brief answers, Mr Speaker, but the professor was knighted for his public service in the new year’s honours list and we most heartily welcome that.

Phil Wilson: In July 2012, a memorial to the Durham Light Infantry was unveiled at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire. The Northern Echo and veterans of the DLI have launched a campaign for a similar memorial in the DLI’s home county. Will the Minister support that campaign and say what else the MOD can do to ensure a fitting memorial can be unveiled to the DLI in County Durham?

Mark Francois: I pay tribute to the proud history of that regiment. I visited the National Memorial Arboretum, but I cannot say whether, when I was there, I visited that specific memorial. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are about 200. By tradition, the MOD does not pay for war memorials—that has been a tradition for many years. They are paid for by public subscription, but if the DLI, its veterans and others manage to raise the money for that memorial, I promise I will come and visit it.

Fiona Bruce: How can local organisations such as the admirable Congleton charity the Listening Out Loud Foundation, which has just opened its first home for seven ex-servicemen, obtain broader support? It is working with Cheshire East council and hopes to obtain agreement this week for another home. Is that not an excellent example of partnership working in this field?

Mark Francois: You want brief answers, Mr Speaker: yes.

Pat Glass: Will the new state pension arrangements that will be announced today and implemented in 2017 mean that a member of the armed services who is 13 years from retirement today will have to contribute for nine years at the higher level but not receive the state pension?

Mark Francois: We are working on the details of armed forces pension scheme 15 at the moment. We are still working on some of the fine detail, but I can already say—[Interruption.] Yes, I know, but we are still working on some of the fine detail for its implementation when it starts in 2015. I can already say that the Forces Pension Society has described the new pension as
	“as good as it gets”.

Alec Shelbrooke: The Wetherby and district branch of the Royal British Legion in my constituency works hard to enable the reintegration of ex-personnel. What measures are
	the Minister and the Department taking to ensure that there is the necessary support for our men and women so that they can enjoy the quality of life they deserve after leaving the forces?

Mark Francois: We work very closely with the Royal British Legion and many of the other service charities, such as Help for Heroes, Veterans Aid—a whole range of them—to try to do the best between ourselves and the charitable sector for veterans who have served in our armed forces. These are exceptional people who have done so much for their country and it is right that we support them appropriately.

Tom Blenkinsop: On Wednesday 9 January I asked the Ministers present whether they had met and discussed with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the effect of the under-occupancy penalty in relation to housing benefit for service personnel and their families. The Minister’s response said that no discussions had been held with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Is this state of affairs due to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions refusing to meet, or has no request for a meeting been made by the Government’s defence team?

Mark Francois: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions is a former regular officer, so I think he understands as well as anybody the needs of our armed forces.

Simon Wright: Ministers will be aware of the great potential of Norfolk’s RAF Marham as a base for the joint strike fighter. Will they update the House on the timetable on which basing decisions will be made?

Andrew Robathan: I will. As, regrettably, the decisions on the basing review have been delayed because of the autumn statement, we very much hope to announce the basing review soon and I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman knows what the results are.

Luciana Berger: Medical analysis shows us that reservists are more susceptible than regulars to post-deployment mental health problems and post-traumatic stress disorder. What improvements are being made specifically to post-deployment care for reservists?

Mark Francois: There was a time a while ago when reservists returning from theatre did not go through a full decompression package and did not get the full mental health briefing when they returned from theatre. We have now altered that so that reservists do go through the full decompression package and do get a full mental health briefing when they come back from theatre. I will not go into the point about who was in charge when some of these deficiencies existed.

Jeremy Lefroy: What discussions has my right hon. Friend had over how the Staffords’ name, traditions and role as armoured infantry will be retained in the Mercian Regiment?

Mark Francois: Our policy is that where there are changes in the order of battle, it is very important that history and traditions of noble regiments are properly acknowledged. In the first instance we look to the regimental councils to agree among themselves appropriate proposals to do this. I understand that the Mercian regimental council has come up with proposals that are going through an approvals process. Providing they are reasonable, which we think they are, we will be happy to endorse them.

Thomas Docherty: If the UK Government is to meet the costs of the C-17s for the Mali operation, will the Minister identify which Government Department will meet those costs?

Andrew Robathan: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. Omniscient though I may be, I do not know the answer, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know.

Peter Luff: For the third time of asking at three successive Defence questions, may I ask the Minister when we can expect the publication of the very important but long-delayed audited defence equipment plan?

Philip Dunne: Shortly.

Mr Speaker: The preservation of his good humour on the part of the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) is remarkable in the circumstances.

Nicholas Dakin: May I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet me and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) to discuss the future of the Kirton in Lindsey base? Does he agree that where communities have had long-standing historic relationships with the military in their area, it is crucial that the Ministry of Defence has proper discussions about the future?

Andrew Robathan: We are very keen to maintain good links between the armed forces and communities. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and I look forward to meeting him shortly, when I hope we can come to a sensible agreement on the matter.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Stephen Gilbert.

Stephen Gilbert: Thank you, Mr Speaker. NATO figures show that Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and many other alliance countries are spending less than 2% of their GDP on defence. What is the Minister doing to make sure that all alliance countries pull their weight?

Andrew Murrison: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Only three countries in NATO spend the target 2% of GDP on defence—Greece, ourselves and the US. This point becomes particularly important since the announcement in January last year by the US President about his change in posture. The hon. Gentleman can be certain that at NATO ministerial meetings we will make the point time and again that we cannot have the umbrella that NATO gives us if we do not underwrite the cost.

Attacks on Civilians (Burma)

Valerie Vaz: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Burmese army attacks on civilians in the Kachin state.

Alistair Burt: I thank the hon. Lady for her question.
	Conflict between the Kachin independence army and the Burmese military has been ongoing in northern Shan and Kachin states since the breakdown of the ceasefire agreement in June 2011. There was an upsurge in violence in November and December 2012. As the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), said on 3 January, the British Government are deeply concerned by reports emerging from Kachin state of an escalation in hostilities, including the use of Burmese military helicopters and aircraft against Kachin independence army positions, including in areas around the state capital and Laiza. These tactics represent a marked escalation and pose a significant risk of civilian casualties. Indeed, we received on 13 and 14 January unconfirmed reports that a small number of civilian casualties had resulted from the fighting.
	The British Government have been encouraged by the reforms made by the Burmese Government of President Thein Sein over the past 18 months. We have therefore adopted a policy of constructive engagement, but we have been clear that progress on ethnic reconciliation must remain the highest priority. The situation in Kachin is increasingly serious and could present a threat to such wider reforms.
	In the past hour and a half, I have spoken to our ambassador in Rangoon. Earlier today he met one of the key Kachin civil society leaders to discuss the situation on the ground.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister of State visited Burma from 12 to 15 December, raising our concerns over the situation in Kachin with the Burmese Minister of Defence and Minster Aung Min, the lead Government negotiator for the peace process. The Burmese Government reconfirmed their commitment to seeking a ceasefire with the Kachin independent army at that point.
	During my right hon. Friend’s visit, he made clear to the Burmese Government three points, which remain especially pertinent given recent events. First, the British Government call for an immediate cessation of hostilities. President Thein Sein has called for the fighting to stop, saying that the Burmese Government
	“does not want to pass on the conflict to the next generation.”
	It is imperative that military commanders in Burma heed their President’s call for an end to hostilities.
	Secondly, there must be unhindered humanitarian access to conflict-affected areas. In response to increased need, the Department for International Development announced in December 2012 an additional £1.5 million of humanitarian support for people displaced by fighting in Kachin and neighbouring states, bringing our total
	humanitarian aid contribution to the conflict in Kachin to £3.5 million and supporting 27,500 people to access food, shelter and clean water.
	Thirdly, we call for both sides to return to the negotiating table and make renewed efforts towards a lasting peace. All sides, including the Kachin independence army, must come to the negotiating table and make renewed efforts to work towards lasting peace.
	As I am sure the House would expect, we will continue our dialogue with both sides, and we stand ready to respond to any request for support in any mediation process between them.

Valerie Vaz: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to ask the urgent question, as well as to the Minister for coming to the House.
	The Minister referred to the fact that today, at 8.15 am Burmese time, a 15-year-old boy and a pastor were killed by a direct hit. Will he again raise with the Burmese Government the need to stop any firing on civilians, because BBC Asia has confirmed that these attacks are unprovoked? Will he also raise with the Burmese Government the fact that humanitarian aid is not getting through to 75,000 displaced people? He talked about DFID money, but will he ensure that any British aid is getting to the people who need it most? Given that the EU has suspended sanctions, will the Minister suggest to his EU counterparts that sanctions be reinstated if such direct action on civilians does not stop?
	Has the Minister discussed the crisis with the Chinese Government? The planes are of Chinese origin and the gunships are Russian, so will he undertake to say to both Governments that the raids must stop?
	Given that the Kachin state reached an agreement with the Burmese Government in 2011, and that other minority groups have also formed agreements with them—that is all being put in jeopardy—will the Minister take steps to ensure that the United Nations calls all parties round the table for a proper constitutional settlement, and perhaps a second Panglong conference? Finally, will he ask the Prime Minister to put Burma on the agenda at the G8 summit, when we have the presidency, so that we can hear the voice of the peacemakers, and will he report to the House?

Alistair Burt: I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I repeat again, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, our deep regret at any civilian deaths. Our determination is to seek contact with all sides and that the hostilities cease altogether, wherever they are directed. But, of course, it is particularly upsetting if civilians are involved, and we have indeed made that clear to the Burmese authorities.
	It is very important that UK aid support is getting through. We work with aid agencies on the ground, and I understand that the International Committee of the Red Cross is able to operate and get there, but, naturally, when individual circumstances arise and difficulties are created on the ground, that will not always be the case. However, the hon. Lady is absolutely right, and we are equally determined to make sure that that aid gets through.
	Our position on sanctions is very clear. The sanctions in relation to Burma have only been suspended; they have not been lifted. Could they be reimposed? Oh, yes, they could. Whether or not the Foreign Affairs Council
	in April moves to lift rather than suspend them will depend on the progress that Burma is making in relation to the challenges it has been set in dealing with ethnic conflict and the political process. I do not doubt for a moment that the Burmese Government are well aware of the conditions that are likely to attach to any further progress in relation to sanctions.
	The Chinese Government have already been contacted by the United Kingdom in relation to how it deals with those who flee across the border, whom the Chinese tend to see as economic migrants as opposed to our own definition, which would be those seeking to escape the conflict. This gives us an opportunity to engage directly with the Chinese Government. I genuinely do not know whether their participation through types of arms has been raised, but I note what the hon. Lady says and will raise that with my right hon. Friend when I next speak to him.
	On 2 January, the UN Secretary-General called for the fighting to stop and for access to be guaranteed to the delivery of aid to vulnerable communities, including those displaced by violence. The UN Secretary-General’s special adviser, Vijay Nambiar, has recently returned from Burma. We hope that he will have the opportunity to brief the Security Council on his return very quickly and our concerns will be made known to him, but we will keep in regular contact.
	I am afraid that it is rather too early for me to say what might or might not be on the agenda of the G8 summit. Let us hope that by that stage we will all have seen the progress in Burma that we wish to see.

David Burrowes: I appreciate that the Minister had a telephone conversation this morning with the ambassador, but, as I asked in the House on Thursday, what specifically have the Government done to respond directly to the concerning reports coming from the Kachin border over the Christmas period? How will the Government make it crystal clear to President Sein that he cannot hold out the hand of peace and reform while allowing direct attacks on civilians?

Alistair Burt: As I sought to make clear, we have been very disturbed at the increasing violence in the state. We know that there is frustration on all sides with progress on the issues affecting the Kachin people and the Burmese Government. But a degree of patience has been called for, and whatever difficulties there are cannot be resolved by resort to physical violence. I can assure my hon. Friend that the ambassador, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his recent visit, made very clear the UK’s concerns. He can also be assured, from my conversation with the ambassador this morning, that these conversations are taking place at the highest level and with great urgency. My hon. Friend is right: continuing progress in Burma on the relief of sanctions and the normalisation of relations is entirely dependent on how Burma handles its present responsibilities, and the world is indeed watching.

Jonathan Ashworth: The Minister will accept that we welcome the reforms in Burma—I am sure we all agree on that—but does he agree that we must send the strongest message to Burma that it has
	to recognise the diversity of its people, whether that is minorities in Kachin or granting citizenship to the Rohingya in Rakhine? Will he give us more details of the work the UK Government can do at a UN level to support ethnic reconciliation in Burma?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Ethnic reconciliation is a key factor in the return of normalisation of relationships between Burma and the rest of the world. We are engaged bilaterally and through the UN and others in doing whatever we can to provide support, encouragement and, where possible, examples of reconciliation within the United Kingdom to assist efforts being made in Burma.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly mentions the Rohingya people. As he may know, the latest position is that the commission of investigation set up by the Burmese Government is hoping to report in March. There have been no further flare-ups since the violence in October. That might suggest that the political process is being taken seriously and has some opportunity to succeed, but it will not do so unless it tackles the question of citizenship, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and on which the whole House is agreed.

Bob Stewart: As the Minister has stated that the International Committee of the Red Cross can apparently get through, are personnel and staff from our own Department for International Development able to work either alongside it or under the aegis of the ICRC on the ground?

Alistair Burt: I specifically asked this morning about the engagement of international aid agencies. As my hon. Friend will know only too well, the circumstances of engagement on the ground depend very much on security and everything else, but I was assured that international agencies are still working there. I am not currently in a position to say whether that includes our colleagues in DFID working alongside the ICRC or working to provide support, but as a result of my hon. Friend’s question I will make sure that the question is asked again. Ensuring that this aid is delivered directly is absolutely crucial in the circumstances.

John Spellar: As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) highlighted, Labour Members have been deeply concerned by the escalation of tensions in Kachin state over the past month and by the reports overnight that three civilians have been killed and at least four wounded—attacks that must be condemned. Despite how far Burma has come over the past year, the violence in Kachin state serves as a reminder to the international community of the further progress that it must make. Does the Minister think that the UK has put sufficient pressure on the Burmese Government over the past year to bring an end to the conflict?
	I thank the Minister for his report on the discussions held by the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), but will he tell us in a bit more detail what contacts the Foreign Office has had with colleagues in the EU and the UN to concert international action?
	There are disputed reports about the Government’s convoy to Kachin in December, which the rebels claimed contained ammunition. Has the Foreign Office been able verify these claims and whether its destination was the army base?
	There are also reports that Laiza residents are having to dig trenches and build shelters to try to protect themselves from the military’s attacks. Has the Foreign Office discussed with DFID and with international counterparts what immediate assistance can be provided to protect civilians?
	As the Minister will be aware, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has called on the Burmese Government and the Kachin independence army to resume negotiations, and their spokesman has confirmed that
	“China has already taken measures necessary to step up control over the border area and protects the lives and property of the border people”.
	Has the UK made contact with China to discuss these more recent developments and the plight of Kachin civilians fleeing the violence? Does the Minister have an indication of what these “measures” constitute? Human Rights Watch has reported that China has in fact forced Kachin refugees back to Burma and was denying international humanitarian agencies access to the refugees in Yunnan province. What assessment has the FCO made of the treatment of the displaced and the options for those now escaping the violence? Will the Government work with the international community to ensure that Kachin civilians can access humanitarian support?
	The immediate priority must be the welfare of those civilians and an end to the attacks, so what, in the Minister’s assessment, are the prospects for a ceasefire? Will the Government make it categorically clear that we will not tolerate air strikes and helicopter gunship attacks and that we will support the call on 2 January from the UN Secretary-General to the Burmese authorities to desist from any action that could endanger the lives of civilians living in the area?

Alistair Burt: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions, which covered a range of areas that obviously concern the House significantly. We share with him and the House a sense of condemnation following the deaths of civilians, as well as their concern about the resurgence of hostilities. We have indeed made it clear to the Burmese authorities that there should be an immediate ceasefire and that hostilities should stop. There is no possibility of the political reconciliation process being able to take place until that happens. We therefore continue to make representations to both sides, because this is a complex issue that has many sides and we want to make representations to ensure that they play their part and that, when hostilities cease, there is a proper opportunity for the necessary political dialogue.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there had been sufficient political persuasion by the United Kingdom over the past year. My sense of the evidence of the progress that has been made comes from the visit of the Minister of State and the contacts that he has, as well as from the obvious progress that has been made in Burma in a variety of ways to ease the situation in different
	areas. However, as soon as one situation flares up again, we have to question that progress, and the House can be assured that we will continue to exert pressure.
	It is obvious that progress must continue to be made if Burma is to resume its place among the rest of the nations. It understands that very well, and the forthcoming Foreign Affairs Council in April will accordingly be of huge significance. We will certainly expect to see further progress by then. In relation to that, contact is of course constantly maintained with partners in the European Union and the United Nations, and we certainly supported the calls made by the Secretary-General at the beginning of the year for a rapid end to hostilities. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the claims made by the KIA. I have received no details of their verification at this stage. He also asked about the preparations for a military attack, and that does indeed form a vital part of the consideration about humanitarian relief and assistance in those circumstances. That matter has indeed been raised.
	As I said in answer to a previous question, we are well aware that China has been returning refugees because it classes them as economic migrants, rather than as people fleeing conflict, which would appear to the United Kingdom to be the more obvious way of classing those who are fleeing across the borders. We do indeed make representations to China that it should act responsibly and provide proper humanitarian care to those who are seeking relief from the violence and conflict. None of that will have any impact, however, unless work is done between the KIA and the Burmese Government to settle the issue. We will continue to make representations to the Chinese, but settling the issue is very much the most important thing.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the prospects for a ceasefire. We would hope that, following the international pressure that has been brought to bear as a result of the incidents of recent weeks, and particularly those that took place over the weekend, the Burmese Government will take note of how seriously those incidents are being seen in foreign capitals around the world, notwithstanding the fact that the greatest tragedy is that being inflicted on those who are suffering the violence. That violence must cease so that a proper political process can take place.

Martin Horwood: European sanctions on Burma remain in place, but it is welcome that reconsideration of the suspension in April will take into account these worrying reports from Kachin state. The arms embargo also remains in place. Does the Minister agree that, for the foreseeable future, that should remain the case?

Alistair Burt: Yes.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Minister and to colleagues.

State Pension Reform

Steve Webb: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on state pension reform. I am pleased to announce that, as part of the coalition Government’s mid-term review, we shall be pressing ahead with our plans for a single, simple state pension, reassuring people that it pays to save, and making it easier for them to take responsibility for their own retirement planning.
	Before I set out our plans for the future, I want to say a few words about the pensioners of today, who are and will always remain a priority for this Government. Within months of coming to power, we restored the earnings link with the basic state pension—something for which campaigners had been calling for 30 years. As a result, from April this year the basic state pension will reach its highest level as a percentage of average earnings for two decades. I should add that, on a freezing day such as this, the House will also welcome the fact that we have reversed the planned cuts in the cold weather payments, which are of so much value to poorer pensioners.
	Last month was the 70th anniversary of the Beveridge report. The original idea from Beveridge was for a single, simple, decent state pension, paid at the end of a lifetime of national insurance contributions. We have drifted a very long way from that blueprint.
	We now have two state pensions, entitlement to which arises under different terms, uprated according to different rules, with complex arrangements for people who are divorced or who become widowed. There are also special arrangements for married women that relate to a time when the prevailing wisdom was that men needed a pension and women needed a husband.
	The state earnings-related pension scheme—often referred to as SERPS—is extraordinarily complex, with variable amounts paid out in retirement that no one is properly able to predict. This position is made even more complex by a system known as contracting out, whereby people in workplace pensions are able to opt out of the state second system.
	The complexity in the current system means that, when it comes to telling people what they might get from the state, the Government have to write letters that include paragraphs such as this:
	“At some time you chose to ‘contract out’ of the additional state pension by paying into an Occupational or Personal Pension. Because of this we make a contracted-out deduction (COD) from the maximum amount of additional state pension that we would otherwise pay you. We make changes every year to the additional state pension and the COD, but this may be at different rates. This means that your additional state pension could be different from the amount we have estimated and could actually be”
	zero. This is nonsense.
	Millions of people do not receive enough to live on from the two state pensions combined, so they rely on a third system of mass means-testing known as the pension credit. Those with small amounts of their own savings can find themselves little better off than others with no savings at all, and thousands more fail to claim the money they would otherwise be entitled to, some because they find it demeaning to do so. We can and must do better.
	In 2011 we published our Green Paper, “A state pension for the 21st century”, and had more than 100 organisations and 1,600 individuals respond. There was a consensus that the state pension system needs to be simplified and strong support for the option of a single tier.
	Today, the Government are publishing their plans so that the workers of today retire on a single, simple, decent pension, very much in line with the Beveridge model, but updated to fit with the modern age. This is a new pension system that reflects the fact that people are living longer and will be drawing their state pension at a later point in their lives, and that working patterns and family life have changed, with women much more likely to be working and becoming entitled through their own national insurance contributions. Working lives are more fragmented and people need to take more personal responsibility when it comes to planning and saving for their retirement.
	Under our plans, someone who starts work under the new single-tier rules would become entitled to just one state pension set above the level of the basic means test. The full rate will be payable for 35 qualifying years of national insurance contributions. This reflects the fact that we are combining two pensions: a basic pension payable for 30 years and a state second pension based on national insurance contributions over a working life of up to 50 years.
	Consistent with the current system, there will be credits for those who cannot pay national insurance because of caring responsibilities. Importantly, the new rules will be of particular benefit to many older women who have impaired pension records because they took time out to raise children during the 1980s and 1990s.
	Every individual will qualify for a pension in their own right, with no complex rules about claiming pensions based on the NI record of a spouse. As the new single-tier pension will be set above the basic level of the means test, people who do the right thing by putting money aside during their working life will be far less likely to see it clawed back in retirement through the means-tested benefits system. This is particularly important in a world where millions of private sector workers are being automatically enrolled into workplace pensions, including many on lower incomes who will be saving for the first time.
	The new system will be introduced in 2017 at the earliest. We need to let business know now that this is coming, but it needs time to adjust. When the new system is introduced, people will no longer become entitled to the state second pension, and so the whole complex system of contracting out will be abolished. Of course, national insurance contributions paid and that would, under the current system, have led to entitlement to a second state pension will be recognised. For example, when we introduce single tier, someone who retires in 2018 who has £160 in the current system will still get a pension of £160. Those workers who were previously contracted out will start to pay full national insurance contributions, like all other workers, but in return they will become entitled, potentially, to a pension at the single-tier level, rather than the much lower basic state pension today. For the vast majority of those people, the higher national insurance contributions that they pay will be more than offset by the higher state pension they receive.
	The overall cost of the new system will be the same as that of the one it replaces. This is not a pensions giveaway for the next generation. A higher flat pension is affordable only because, in the long term, people will not become entitled to very large earnings-related pensions through the state system. In a world where everyone will be automatically enrolled into a workplace pension with a contribution from their employer, it no longer makes sense for the state to run its own separate earnings-related pension scheme. Higher earners are among those being automatically enrolled, with substantial employer contributions, so those who earn the most while they are working will continue to be the best off in retirement.
	Later this week, we shall publish a draft Bill that will put our plans into law. I wrote to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee earlier today, asking whether her Committee will carry out pre-legislative scrutiny of our plans. I hope to receive a positive response to that request.
	The White Paper also contains details of our plans for a more structured framework within which to consider future changes to the state pension age. However, I can confirm that there will be no further changes announced during the life of this Parliament. The plan is to review state pension age once every five years, starting in the next Parliament, based around the principle of maintaining a given proportion of adult life in receipt of state pension, as suggested by the Turner commission. Each review will be informed by analysis from the Government Actuary’s Department, with an independently led body reporting on wider factors that should be taken into account.
	Our analysis shows that more than 10 million people who are at work today are not saving enough to generate the sort of income that they want to receive in retirement. The combination of a single, simple, decent state pension and the right to a workplace pension with a statutory minimum contribution from the employer will mean that, for the first time, there will be a firm foundation for retirement for the work force of today. I commend this statement to the House.

Gregg McClymont: I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, although it was not as advanced as that of some newspapers over the weekend. However, he did have the decency to brief me as our paths crossed in a TV studio this morning.
	Today was not supposed to be about pensions at all but about the unveiling of the Government’s flagship child care proposals, which took centre stage at the coalition relaunch last week. Unfortunately, the latest bout of coalition unity did not last even a week. The Government cannot agree on child care, but the Prime Minister was desperate to have something to talk about this morning other than Europe, so—voila—we have the pensions White Paper.
	In all seriousness and in respect of the Minister’s commitment to this proposal, we will take the White Paper very seriously. However, I sound a cautionary note. The Government have form on pensions. We remember when the Government laid the 2011 Pensions Bill before the House. The Minister told the House that it was fair to all, but neglected to mention a huge
	unfairness. I talk, of course, of the targeting of women in their later-50s, who found that the goalposts for their retirement had been moved again at short notice. It took Labour’s digging to reveal that injustice and a Labour campaign to win Government concessions. There is therefore every reason to look closely at the detail.
	The principle of a simplified state pension was laid down by the Turner commission and was supported by all parties. The Leader of the Opposition has reiterated our support for that principle. However, it is fair to note that Turner rejected an abrupt shift to a single-tier state pension, which is why the previous Labour Government adopted an evolutionary approach.
	Even on my speed-reading of today’s White Paper, there will be heavy losers, steep cliff edges and significant costs if the proposal goes ahead as planned. For example, the briefing from the Government over the weekend was at pains to emphasise the women-friendly aspects of the measures. However, I want to ask the Minister directly about the 429,000 women born between 6 April 1952 and 6 July 1953. Is it the case that those 429,000 women will not qualify for the single-tier state pension, and yet men who were born between the same dates will?
	Let me dig a little deeper. The Minister referred to existing pensioners. Is it the case that this proposal excludes all existing pensioners and all those who intend to retire before 2017? If so, what is his message to the 15 million or 16 million people, by my calculation, who will not be eligible for the new pension? How many pensioners does he estimate will remain on £107 a week rather than £144?
	May I ask the Minister about the 1.4% national insurance tax rise on 6 million workers? As I understand it, the money raised by that tax hike will not be reinvested in the new state pension but will flow straight into Treasury coffers. If that indeed the case, how much money will that tax grab raise, and why is the money not being reinvested in the new state pension?
	More narrowly, will the de minimis 10 years of contributions be part of the process by which public sector workers and private sector defined-benefit contracted out workers will participate in the new pension? Specifically, will they need at least 10 years of contributions to the new state pension to get any pension whatever?

Steve Webb: indicated dissent.

Gregg McClymont: The Minister shakes his head, which is important. I would appreciate it if he referred to the matter in his response.
	We also seek clarification on what the abolition of the state second pension means for savers. Will the state second pension part of people’s accrued rights be uprated by CPI, not under the triple lock that will apply to the single state pension? That is an important question. Furthermore, how many savers currently pay into the state second pension, and how many of them will receive a lower state pension than they would have done without this reform? In other words, how many losers will there be among those who currently save in the state second pension?
	The Government claim to have learned from the 2011 Pensions Bill. They say, and have briefed widely over the weekend and this morning, that the big winners in the new system will be stay-at-home mums. Some context
	is needed here. The Labour Government put female pensioners at the heart of their pensions policy. Most importantly, they massively reduced the number of years of contributions that both men and women needed to get a full state pension. It was reduced enormously to 30 years from 44 for men and 39 for women. The Government propose to put it back up to 35 years. What will be the impact of that five-year rise in contributions? Specifically, will it reduce the number of pensioners eligible for a full state pension, on Department for Work and Pensions estimates? That is an important question.
	May I ask the Minister about the rising state pension age, which he mentioned towards the end of his statement? The Government seem to propose a new mechanism for increasing the state pension age. I have two questions about that. First, the difference in life expectancy between a manual worker and someone doing a non-manual job will play itself out both in the amounts saved in the new state pension and in the fact that non-manual workers will get it, on average, for much longer than manual workers. How will the system be made fair, given the difference in life expectancy, with a rising state pension age?
	The second question is related to that. What if manual workers in particular cannot work for as long as any new mechanism sets out that they should when the state pension age is raised? If they cannot do hard, physical labour, how will that affect the Government’s claim that there will be a massive reduction in means-testing in the new system?
	Those are only some of the questions that face us as we consider the detail of the White Paper. I suspect that the argument will not disappear overnight, because there is much detail to be considered. I hope that the Minister will give us some provisional answers on important matters that are affecting our constituents and his own.

Steve Webb: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what I would characterise as his broadly constructive response to my remarks. I welcomed his comment on the television this morning that
	“the Labour party supports the principle of a flat-rate state pension”.
	I welcome that because pensions are for the long term, and with two coalition parties united in support for this reform and support in principle from the official Opposition, we have a chance of stability in pensions policy, which would be good for all.
	The hon. Gentleman says that the Government have form on pensions, and that is a fair cop: we restored the earning link after 30 years, we ruled out 75p increases, and last year we introduced the biggest ever cash rise in pensions. He asked about women in their late 50s, many of whom are the very women who were penalised for time spent at home with their children. Although they got some protection on the basic pension, they did not get it on SERPS and the state second pension. The Government are putting that right for the very group of women about whom he asks.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about women born in certain months, and the equivalent men. The changes are based on state pension age, and as he knows, that is
	different for men and women so the implications are also different. The April 217 change is based on when people’s state pension age falls. He asked about people who “retire” but that is not really the right word—it is all to do with someone’s state pension age and whether it is before or after the change.
	The hon. Gentleman asked how many pensioners are on £107. To be clear, someone who has worked in the public sector throughout their life—a teacher, for instance—would be on £107 because they contracted out of the other bit. In our system, from day one they would also be on £107 because we will take account of past periods of contracting out. Future service in the public sector at the full NI rate will add years to that £107. It is not a cliff edge; the exact day before or day after for those people is the same, but they can then work off that contracted-out deduction.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the national insurance rebate and—interestingly—suggested that we spend it on pensions. That is obviously a matter for a future Chancellor, but given that the public sector, the NHS and schools will pay significantly more national insurance, it would be interesting to know whether the hon. Gentleman’s position is that that money should go from the NHS and schools into higher state pensions. He asked about the 10-year de minimis. Let us be clear that we are not saying 10 years in the new system—the requirement is 10 qualifying years in someone’s lifetime. That is because there are backpackers who do a couple of years of bar work and 40 years later we are paying them a state pension for another 20 years. The sorts of people who would be excluded are those who come for a few years, do not really have any skin in the game and pay just a few years of national insurance. They will not get a pension—that is how we save money to spend on pensions.
	On state second pension uprating, as I mentioned in my statement, for someone on £160, the first £144—at least earnings—will be triple locked in our White Paper and the balance will be linked to the CPI as SERPS is currently. The hon. Gentleman asked about people who pay into the state second pension, and except for about 5 million public sector workers and a couple of million private sector workers, everybody else pays into the state second pension. He said they were all losers—obviously they will not accrue S2P, but they will accrue a bigger flat-rate state pension.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the April 2010 changes to qualifying years which he described as an “enormous” reduction. That is, therefore, also an enormous cliff edge of the sort he accuses the Government of making, and there were virtually no transitional arrangements for that. Someone who retired a day before that enormous cliff edge got nothing, whereas someone who retired the day after got the benefit of 30 years’ contribution. There are precedents for such things. When the contribution years were set to 30, women’s state pension age was still 60. In our world, and in the future, it will be 65, 66 or 67, and it is hard to see why in a working life of 50-odd years someone should get a pension for 30 years of contributions. We are merging a pension with a 30-year rule with another pension with a 50-year rule, and we have 35 as a sort of weighted average.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about differences in life expectancy. I gently point out, however, that when the previous Government legislated for a pension
	age of 66, 67 and 68, they did precisely nothing about differences in life expectancy. We are recommending an independent panel to look at the issue and advise the Secretary of State.

Jane Ellison: I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he agree that the task of tackling complexity is vital and that this arrangement seeks to address those many older pensioners who do not seek means-tested top-ups because it is too complex and they are often to dignified to do it?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right. In every interview I have done today, we have had to spend about 20 minutes explaining how the current system works before we deal with the change. I welcome the fact that consumer organisations such as Age UK, although it has questions about the details, has warmly welcomed the principles of our reform.

Anne Begg: I thank the Minister for his statement and for listening to the most recent report on pensions by the Work and Pensions Committee. When we looked at auto-enrolment, we said that a flat-rate state pension was important. On behalf of the Committee, I accept his invitation to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny.
	The final outcome of the pension reform will, we hope, be a simple and easy-to-understand state pension, but already, from this afternoon’s exchange, it sounds as though getting there will be incredibly complicated. Will the Minister give us an idea of how long the transitional arrangements will be in place? I suspect that the Committee will spend a great deal of time analysing those arrangements to ensure that they are fair.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Lady both for her Committee’s report calling for the state pension to be sorted out and for her willingness to undertake the scrutiny. We will work closely with, and support, her Committee in doing that. She is absolutely right: transition is the messy bit. With pension reform, it would be lovely to start with no history and a blank sheet of paper, but we cannot do that. The straight answer to her question, however, is that transition is particularly important for those closest to pension age, who will have a complex history and rights built up. For younger workers, it is straightforward: they will do the 35 years and get the £144. Transition is complicated and messy in the early years, but it quickly works its way through the system, and we have worked hard on the statements we will send to people. They will be clear and say, as it were, “Under the bonnet, the workings might be complicated, but you’ve got this so far. Do this many years, and you’ll get £144.”

Graham Evans: Does the Minister agree that the current pensions system is not working and does not guarantee pensioners the financial security to which they are entitled? Will he confirm that the triple lock guarantee will still apply to the new single-tier pension, thus avoiding the 75p increase fiasco we saw under the last Labour Government?

Steve Webb: The current position is that we are obliged by law to uprate by at least earnings, and our policy is to go further and have the triple lock, as is
	mirrored in the White Paper. The legal position in the draft Bill will be at least for earnings uprating, but all our illustrative estimates in the White Paper are indeed based on the triple lock.

Frank Field: I congratulate the pensions Minister and the Secretary of State on delivering the White Paper against the restriction the Treasury imposed on them—that the reform be delivered at no extra cost. So that the House and the country can understand how successful they have been in driving a coach and horses through the restriction, might the Minister tell us the largest increase in contribution that any worker will face under his scheme?

Steve Webb: I enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s column in The Guardian today. He imagined that we would make this pension reform work by not making it contributory, but I hope that I have clarified for him that people will still need 35 years of contributions or credits to draw the pension. The straight answer to his question is that the rebate is 1.4% and applies to a band of earnings from the lower earnings limit of about £5,500 to the upper earnings limit of about £40,000. It is 1.4% of that band.

Greg Mulholland: I commend my hon. Friend for the biggest state pension reform for 50 years, but how will it tie in with the other big development, which is auto-enrolment in workplace pensions?

Steve Webb: I had the great pleasure of joining my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at Asda this morning—when he caught up on a bit of his shopping—and meeting shop workers who had just been automatically enrolled by Asda. It was fascinating talking to them, because some were in the scheme already, but many were not. Those who had been auto-enrolled were going to stay in, and one said, “It’s not that much money. To be honest, I drink more than that in the pub over a month.” People are being brought into workplace pensions. We do not want them opening their newspapers and being told, “Don’t bother saving, because you’re just going to be means-tested.” We believe that we have dealt with that problem today, which will make auto-enrolment work as well as state pension reform.

Eilidh Whiteford: The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said today that the proposals will mean
	“a cut in pension entitlements for most people in the long run.”
	I am also concerned that they touch on public sector pensions and other areas of devolved competence. Will the Minister ensure that his Department engages in constructive technical discussions with the Scottish Government on the transitional process?

Steve Webb: I have written to the devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament about our announcement today. On the hon. Lady’s question about costings, let me say that for the next couple of decades or so we will be spending pretty much the same as now—it is within the same cost envelope—but we will be getting the bill down for younger workers by the middle of the century. It will not be down relative to today—the share of
	national income going on pensions will be substantially bigger than today—but it will not be rising quite as fast. We are ensuring that workers in their 20s will be automatically enrolled so that they have a savings culture as well as state pension.

Nigel Mills: I warmly welcome this announcement, and I think we will get to the right place. How long does the Minister expect that the current complex system will have to remain in place? Will we have to keep paying people pension credits for 40 years or more, or will there be a taper so that everybody will eventually receive the new pension?

Steve Webb: I am afraid that the taper is sometimes called the grim reaper. The process is that everybody who has already reached pension age by 2017 will have their rights under the current rules. I have every anticipation that those rights will be honoured for as long as people are in a position to draw them.

Graham Jones: Could the Minister expand on people who have SERPS that sit with private pension companies? What will happen to those pensions? He says that some who have opted out into SERPS may not qualify for the single tier. How will he explain to people the relationship between those with SERPS who have a private pension and how they will qualify for the single tier? It sounds a little complex to me.

Steve Webb: At the moment, we have a two-tier work force: those who are paying full national insurance and drawing a basic pension and a SERPS pension; and those who pay a reduced national insurance, who just build up a basic pension. In the future it will be simpler: there will just be workers who pay national insurance and build up rights under the single tier. We have to honour the past and deal with its complexity, but going forward every year will be a year’s worth of single-tier pension—a thirty-fifth of £144 for everybody. Whether they were previously contracted in or contracted out, it will be the same for everybody.

Paul Uppal: I welcome the statement. Out there in the real world my constituents are heartened by us in this place seeking to simplify an aspect of financial payment for once. In relation to young entrepreneurs and many of those who are self-employed, can the Minister assure me and the House that those who pay into the national insurance pot will, under the single-tier system, see full payment and full benefit from the contributions they make?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the self-employed. At the moment, the self-employed build up rights under the basic pension—the £107—but not the equivalent of the £144. In our world, there are just people who pay national insurance, build up qualifying years and build up a pension. The self-employed are therefore potentially substantial beneficiaries of the new and simpler system.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the Minister confirm that workers currently in the private sector who contracted out may also see, in addition to having to
	pay higher national insurance contributions, either higher contributions towards their private pension or a reduction in benefits?

Steve Webb: Yes, the hon. Lady is right. We have talked to the CBI, the National Association of Pension Funds and major pension employers. They are clear that they do not simply want to take the national insurance rise on the chin; they want the freedom to adjust their private sector pension scheme in response. However, we have calculated that, even allowing for that, the bulk of people who are within 20 to 25 years of pension age will still get more back, from the extra national insurance and any reduction in their private pension, through the enhanced state pension than they have lost.

James Morris: Does the Minister agree that a modern pension system needs to reflect the changes in a modern work force, and that what he is announcing today will help self-employed people, and women who have not been able to work and have a variable contribution record?

Steve Webb: Yes, the new system is designed to treat people as people, rather than as dependants. It removes the distinction between employee and self-employed, contracted in and contracted out. Given that these boundaries are somewhat permeable—people might be self-employed one year and part time the next and so on—this will streamline the system and make it easier for people to build up the 35 years they need.

Jim Cunningham: Somebody mentioned the 75p increase earlier. The reason for that was that the previous Conservative Government broke the link and then it was related to prices, so let us be clear about that. Secondly, the problem with pensions actually started when the previous Conservative Government, in terms of industry, gave incentives to people to opt out of SERPS and into private schemes—that is how we got ourselves into this mess today. How many people will lose out under these proposals?

Steve Webb: We are publishing later this week, along with the Bill, a detailed impact assessment of the changes over a series of decades. In the White Paper we have published today, the hon. Gentleman will see a chart that shows that, for I think at least 35 to 40 years, a majority of people affected by the changes will gain rather than lose.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate my hon. Friend on what the Government have achieved and seek clarification on two points. From which budget will the NHS and other public sector employers have to find the additional national insurance contributions? Are small employers in constituencies such as Thirsk and Malton being asked to increase national insurance contributions as well as contribute towards a private pension scheme?

Steve Webb: In answer to my hon. Friend’s first question, the NHS as an employer already pays the reduced rate of national insurance from its own resources; it will have an increased rate of national insurance. Obviously the Exchequer will have an increased revenue.
	It will be a matter for the Chancellor of the day to decide what to do with that increased revenue, but the NHS as an employer will pay more national insurance—that is a fact.
	In answer to my hon. Friend’s question about small firms in her constituency, very few small firms run contracted-out defined-benefit pensions, so the only people paying increased national insurance will be those who are contracted out who run these special final salary schemes. We have allowed those schemes to adjust their rules to offset the cost if that is how they choose to proceed, but most small firms will not be affected.

Christopher Leslie: Crucial to these proposals is the notion that parents who take time off work to bring up children—stay-at-home mums—will register for national insurance pension credit in order to get their cumulative 35-year tally of contributions. However, surely the Government are not saying that the only way to get these credits is to apply for child benefit, because from 7 January not everybody has been eligible for child benefit payments. That would be ridiculously complex and confusing, would it not?

Steve Webb: There are two groups of people. First, those who are currently receiving child benefit that will cease because of the changes for people with higher-earning spouses will continue to get credits under this system—they are in the child benefit system with a zero award. For people who have their first child under the new regime, we already put information in what is called the bounty pack—which new mothers get—to encourage them to claim child benefit, not least because even if their spouse is a high earner at the moment, that might not always be so, so they should always claim child benefit anyway, to ensure they get their credits.

Oliver Colvile: What impact will these changes have on private occupational pension rebates?

Steve Webb: The remaining contracted-out final salary pension schemes currently receive a 3.4% national insurance rebate. That will go, which will be a cost to those employers. We have talked to the pension funds, the CBI and so on. They have said that a fair response is to allow the schemes to reduce accrual rates—for example, to offset any additional cost—and that will be a provision in the pensions Bill that we publish later this week.

Bridget Phillipson: The Minister just referred to women applying for child benefit, even though they might not be entitled to any award. Does he not think that we are potentially storing up a big problem for the future, in that many women will see no reason to register for a benefit to which they will not be entitled?

Steve Webb: Just to be clear, even if we were not doing any of this pensions stuff, although someone might be the partner of a high earner when their baby is born, people’s relationships change. It is therefore always advisable for them to claim their child benefit anyway—even if, in the end, they receive a zero award—which also sorts out the pension credits problem.

Sarah Newton: Along with tens of thousands of other women in their 50s who took a career break to raise their children, I very much welcome these measures, but can the Minister explain to me and other women returning to work how they will interact with the auto-enrolment pension scheme?

Steve Webb: Where a mother spends time out of the labour market and then returns to work, her pension rights at the £144 rate will be fully protected. If those women are not in an auto-enrolment scheme, they are not contributing, the employer is not contributing and they are not building up rights under that scheme, but we are ensuring that there is a firmer foundation. If those women carry on receiving, for example, maternity pay during maternity leave, then pension contributions can be taken from maternity pay, which can keep their pension contributions going.

Paul Flynn: Will the Minister emulate the splendid example of Barbara Castle in 1975, who secured all-party support for the introduction of SERPS? Will he also consider a reform whereby retirees who are fortunate enough still to be in work while receiving the basic pension should continue to pay national insurance? That would be fair, affordable and acceptable and would bring in between £2 billion and £3 billion a year.

Steve Webb: I would certainly warmly welcome all-party support. I have tried to approach the issue in as constructive a way as I can, because we want an element of stability in the pension system. I am not convinced that levying national insurance contribution on working pensioners is the way forward. Clearly, what we want is some flexibility in retirement. We want to get away from this cliff edge where people are either working or retired. We are interested in a model of phased retirement, partial drawing of pensions, deferring retirement and part-time work. As soon as we say, “You are either working or retired; you pay national insurance or you do not”, we get back to the cliff-edge model that we are trying to move away from.

Stephen Mosley: I welcome this statement, which will reduce the complexity of the pensions system, reduce means-testing and reduce the uncertainty for future pensioners. Will the Minister say whether it will also reduce administration costs within the Department for Work and Pensions?

Steve Webb: It will indeed. To give a flavour of the scale, at the moment nearly half of all pensioners are entitled to some sort of means-tested benefit. That is an extraordinary and absurd situation. If I tell the hon. Gentleman that by the time the system is fully implemented, we will be down to one in 20 pensioners being entitled to pension credit, that provides an example of the scale of the change we are bringing in.

Cathy Jamieson: In his statement, the Minister made much of the need for plain language, so will he confirm that under the proposals a significant number of women will not receive the new higher-rate single-tier pension in 2017, even though men born on the same date would receive
	it? Will he also confirm that that potentially affects some 430,000 women across the UK, including 39,000 in Scotland?

Steve Webb: I think I have already dealt with that point. Pension ages are changing, and they will not be the same for men and women until 2018. If we have a system based on pension age, it will be different for men and women by definition until they are equalised. It seems to me that the only way to run a system is to base it on people’s actual state pension age—rather than have an actual state pension age and then bring single tier in on a different day for a set of people born in different periods. That would introduce extra complexity, which we are trying to stop.

Nicola Blackwood: I welcome this statement, as the problems of complexity and inequality that have been identified are all too familiar to my constituents, and they have without doubt undermined this country’s savings culture. Will the Minister explain, however, how the new proposals would affect carers in my constituency? Can he guarantee that his commitment to simplicity would go all the way down to user level?

Steve Webb: I am grateful. Carers receive the carer’s allowance, and there are other sorts of carer’s credits. Carers will thus end up with credits for the full £144—or whatever the final rate ends up being—so this has the potential to be a significant benefit to them. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is all very well for us to talk about simplicity, but people need to experience simplicity. That is why the White Paper provides an example of a pension statement. It is a single piece of paper saying, “You have built this amount up; if you do this many more years, you will get the full pension.” Everybody will know the rate: it will be a standard figure, and much harder for future Governments to tinker with.

Andy Sawford: I have been contacted by my constituent, Mrs Slater. She is a widow, aged 59. She tells me she was informed on her husband’s death that she would benefit from his working life and national insurance contributions. She is now concerned that a flat rate will mean that his hard work will no longer be counted when she retires. Will Mrs Slater will be better off or worse off under these proposals?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I understand the concern that any change creates for people. In 2017, I assure him, we will work out people’s pension rights under our new system— 35 years for the full £144, with deductions knocked off for past periods of contracting out—and if that figure amounts to less than the rights someone has already built up, they will start from the higher one. We will honour the past. People will not build up new rights under those sorts of arrangements, but those they already have will be honoured.

Marcus Jones: I have been contacted by many of my constituents over the last few months who have been concerned about the investment
	that they have already made in SERPS and in the state second pension. Will the Minister confirm that contributions already made will be honoured and that pensions will not be rounded down as a result of this policy?

Steve Webb: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. If a pension document says, “You have already built up a pension of £160, £170 or whatever”, people will get at least that amount. Going forward, people will not be able to build up those sorts of pensions in the future, but when they have built them up already, we will recognise those contributions.

William Bain: The 1.4% rise in employee national insurance contributions and the 3.4% rise in employer contributions appear to involve an initial windfall of about £6 billion a year for the Treasury. What guarantees will there be in the Bill that current members of public and private sector pension schemes do not lose out in real terms as a result of these changes?

Steve Webb: We have already given a guarantee that, having renegotiated the public sector pension schemes, we will make no further changes in rights under those schemes for 25 years. While we are changing the national insurance state pensions of public sector workers, we are not touching the public sector pension. Private sector workers may—indeed, probably will—find that their employer adjusts the private sector scheme in response, but, as I have said, even with that adjustment—even with the higher national insurance payment—the vast bulk of workers, certainly those within 20 to 25 years of pension age, will still be net beneficiaries.

Rehman Chishti: How will the new system affect those on low earnings?

Steve Webb: In the past, the state provided a flat basic pension and then an earnings-related second pension. By definition, low earners received low earnings-related pensions. What we propose is simply a flat pension, which means that low earners will, on average, tend to benefit.

Mark Durkan: As well as engaging with the devolved authorities as he has promised to do, will the Minister take time to proof his detailed proposals to ensure that no untoward difficulties arise for cross-border workers? I represent a border constituency, and I know that it is quite normal for people to work on a cross-border basis. Their jobs often move across the border. However, that can create a number of difficulties, including some relating to pensions. Will the Minister minimise those difficulties?

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of cross-border workers, for which we have had to regulate in the automatic enrolment scheme. We are not aware of any specific issues that would arise from our proposals, because they are built on the national insurance contributory principle. They turn contributions into pensions in a different way, but the system is basically the same. However, if the hon. Gentleman becomes aware of any such issues and wishes to draw them to my attention, I shall be happy to look into them.

Margot James: I greatly welcome the simplification of the existing scheme, the introduction of a flat-rate state pension, and the credits for people who have undertaken caring responsibilities and women who have taken career breaks. My hon. Friend has corresponded with me about current pensioners and people who will retire before 2017. What more can he say to reassure my constituents who fall into those categories that they will not lose out terrifically to people on the new system?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend has raised a crucial question. There is some anger and some suspicion that somehow we are throwing money at future pensioners and ignoring today’s, but I can give a categorical assurance that that is not what we are doing. The budget for the new system is the same as the current budget. It is important to note that we are not simply taking the basic pension of £107, sticking 30-odd quid on it, and ignoring all today’s pensioners. We are combining the basic pension, the state second pension and the savings credit into a single flat payment. It is not comparing like with like just to compare the current basic pension with the £144 pension; it is a much more complex process.

Mr Speaker: Order. I always listen intently to what the Minister says, but in a bid to make face-to-face contact with his hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), he is standing sideways. Facing the Chair is always to be preferred.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the Minister agree that pensions means-testing seriously undermined a culture of savings built up over many decades? Will he assure us that, following this reform, people will not be punished for making proper provision for their old age, as they were under the last Government?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is quite right. The nightmare scenario under automatic enrolment would be people opening their newspapers and reading, “Don’t bother to save small amounts of money; the Government will just claw it back.” We are confident that by sorting out the state pension we will not only deal with the position of people at the bottom of the pile, but will make auto-enrolment the success that we all want it to be.

Gavin Barwell: I congratulate the Minister, who has demonstrated his mastery of a highly complex subject. In particular, I warmly welcome the decision to reduce means-testing significantly. Under this Government—unlike the last one—those of my constituents who put small sums away for their retirement will not find themselves little better off than those who do not save.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous comments. Just as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trying to make work pay through the universal credit, we want to make savings pay through
	the single-tier pension. I believe that if we can do both those things, we shall have done a good and important job.

Jeremy Lefroy: I welcome the statement. At present, British citizens who work overseas can build up a contribution record by making voluntary contributions. Will that continue under the future system?

Steve Webb: We do envisage that there will be a system of voluntary contributions. We will have to examine issues such as the price for a year of voluntary contributions, because obviously the pension is bigger, but we envisage that the idea that someone can fill gaps will still be a part of the system.

Andrew Stephenson: I very much welcome today’s statement that a single-tier pension is going to apply to new pensioners after 2017. On Sunday, I met a constituent at my supermarket advice surgery in ASDA in Colne who is in receipt of the basic state pension and pension credit but is unsure whether, as part of wider reforms, pension credit would be replaced by the new universal credit and other pensioner benefits. Will the Minister give clarification on that point?

Steve Webb: There will be knock-on effects when the universal credit is introduced: because housing benefit will no longer be paid for people of working age, we will have to incorporate housing benefit for pensioners in the pension credit system. There will be knock-on changes, but we envisage, certainly for the foreseeable future, a continuing separate pension credit system.

David Burrowes: I, too, welcome the value these reforms will give to people who have taken time out to care for children and, in particular, for elderly relatives. Does this not send out a clear message that this Government are indeed on the side of families and value them in retirement?

Steve Webb: We do indeed believe that, as with a year of paid work paying national insurance, a year bringing up a young child or looking after an elderly or disabled person is an equally valuable contribution to society and should be recognised as such going forward.

Bob Stewart: As I understand it, 750,000 women will be £9 a week better off under these pension reforms. Will a widow who married early, spent the vast majority of her life looking after the home and children and whose husband then died be better off under these reforms?

Steve Webb: As I said in reply to a question a moment ago, where someone has already become a widow and acquired prospective pension rights because someone has died, we will not take those away from them. In future, we want to make sure that every man and every woman builds up a pension in their own right, rather than depending on the contributions of a spouse. But where people have already got those entitlements, they will retain them.

Mali

Mark Simmonds: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Mali and on the United Kingdom’s limited support to the French military deployment to assist the Government of Mali. On 10 January, Mali’s Islamist rebel groups, including significant terrorist elements, moved south from their northern strongholds and captured the town of Konna. From there, they posed a danger to Mali’s second and strategically important garrison of Mopti, and potentially to its capital, Bamako. The situation in Mali is a serious concern for the UK; it would not be in our interests to allow a terrorist haven to develop in northern Mali. As a responsible member of the Security Council, we must support the region in limiting the danger of instability in that part of Africa threatening UK interests.
	This latest violence follows a year of instability in Mali. In January 2012, Tuareg nationalist rebels under the banner of the National Movement for the Liberation of the Azawad—the MNLA—reignited a long-standing armed rebellion against the Malian state. Fighting opportunistically alongside the MNLA, but with a very different agenda, were two terrorist groups: al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb; and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa. Another mainly Tuareg group with an Islamist agenda and strong ties to other terrorist groups, Ansar Dine, also fought against Malian troops. In March 2012, Mali experienced a coup d’état by army officers concerned that the Malian Government were not responding effectively to the threat from these northern groups. Shortly afterwards, Islamist rebels took advantage of the instability caused by the coup to establish control of the north of the country—70% of the territory, including 10% of the population. Following strong pressure from the Economic Community of West African States, the military junta then passed control to an interim civilian-led government.
	Along with the international community, the UK has been concerned by the potential for terrorist groups to establish a safe haven in northern Mali that, if left unchecked, could pose a threat to Europe and the UK as well as to our interests in the region. Together with the international community, the UK has been promoting an effective political process in Mali, which includes a road map to democratic elections and a mediation process between the Malian Government and the northern political groups. Both the political and the military tracks—and, in the longer term, economic development—must contribute to a strategy to strengthen the whole region and make it less vulnerable to humanitarian and political shocks.
	The United Nations Security Council met for an emergency session on 10 January to discuss the movement of extremist forces south and concluded that recent events posed a direct threat to international stability and security. Furthermore, it emphasised the urgent need to counter the increasing terrorist threat and reiterated its call to member states to assist the settlement of the crisis in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolution 2085, issued and agreed on 20 December 2012.
	In response to the statement by the United Nations Security Council and in the light of the fast-emerging threat to the city of Mopti, the Government of Mali made a direct request to the Government of France for assistance. France commenced the deployment of a military contingent on 11 January. The Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff discussed the situation with their French counterparts on 11 January. On the afternoon of 12 January, the United Kingdom received a French request for limited military logistic support to its deployment to Mali and the Prime Minister spoke to President Hollande later that evening. They discussed the deteriorating situation in Mali and the importance of limiting civilian casualties, expediting the deployment of regional forces and co-ordinating international efforts effectively. During that phone call, and on the basis of advice provided by the Ministry of Defence, the Prime Minister agreed to the French request for limited logistic support and directed the Chief of the Defence Staff to make aircraft available.
	I wish to inform the House that two C-17 transport aircraft have been assigned to assist in the deployment. Additionally, a small detachment of technical personnel has deployed to Bamako airport to assist with the reception of UK aircraft. I am informed by my MOD colleagues that on arrival in Paris one of the aircraft faced technical problems, which engineers are currently working on. My MOD colleagues will provide additional information on that in due course. In the coming days, the African-led force, AFISMA—or the African-led international support mission—will begin deploying to Mali to bolster the Malian forces in the aim of restoring Mali’s territorial integrity.
	Separately, the EU is considering a military training mission to help to build the capacity of the Malian forces. As the December European Council made clear, the mission has a clear training-only mandate and no combat role. UK support for the mission and for the Council decision is currently under parliamentary scrutiny, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will discuss it with the European Scrutiny Committee on 16 January. The EU training mission will support and is in line with the UNSCR obligations on Mali.
	I assure the House that British forces will not undertake a combat role in Mali. The Prime Minister has authorised a limited logistical deployment following a direct request from one of our closest allies. The National Security Council will meet tomorrow and will be briefed on the latest developments in Mali. Government Ministers, alongside the Prime Minister’s special representative for the Sahel, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O'Brien), will work with the French Government, the region and international actors such as the UN to put in place the short-term resolution to the crisis and the longer term conditions for security and economic development. The UN Security Council will meet again this afternoon to discuss the crisis.
	The House will no doubt be concerned about the humanitarian situation in the region and what the UK is doing to alleviate that situation. The UN reports that more than 200,000 people have been displaced inside Mali and another 210,000 have fled as refugees in the region. In addition to the immediate support to France, the UK has contributed £59 million in humanitarian aid to the Sahel region through multilateral organisations.
	In December 2012, the Department for International Development agreed a further £15 million in humanitarian aid to the region and funds from the UK have been put to work to help the immediate needs of the Malian people.
	Finally, I would like to reassure the House that the safety of British nationals and personnel remains of paramount concern. Our travel advice has advised against all travel to Mali since the coup in March 2012. That was updated on 11 January this year to advise British citizens remaining in Mali to leave by commercial means, if possible. Our embassy in Bamako is in regular constant touch with the British community there, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London is, of course, working to ensure that contingency measures are in place.
	The threat posed by the instability in Mali is of grave concern to the UK. We must not allow northern Mali to become a springboard for extremism and create instability in the wider west African region. The ferocity and fanaticism of the extremists in northern Mali must be not be allowed to sweep unchecked into the country’s capital. France, which has an historic relationship with Mali, is quite rightly in the lead. In the coming days we will be focused on the regional and international diplomacy we must achieve to check this emerging threat.

John Spellar: I thank the Foreign Office Minister both for his statement and for advance sight of it. We were slightly surprised that on the day of Defence questions, the statement was not made by the Ministry of Defence, especially given the difficulties experienced today by one of our C-17s—although with the Defence Secretary absent, that is probably understandable.
	On behalf of the Opposition, I clearly state our support for the commitment that is being made in support of our close and important French ally, acting in pursuit of a Security Council resolution which stated
	“its grave concern about the consequences of instability”
	in northern Mali
	“on the region and beyond . . . the continuing deterioration of the security and humanitarian situation”
	and
	“the increasing entrenchment of terrorist elements including Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)”
	and affiliated and other extremist groups. That resolution went on to call on member states to provide assistance to Mali’s armed and security forces as soon as possible in order to restore the state’s authority over its entire territory.
	It is important, therefore, to be clear on the strategic purpose of this military engagement and the end point that is sought. Is it to enable the transitional authorities to regain control of the entire north of the country, as outlined by the Security Council in October, or just to halt the southern advance of rebel forces? Those extremist groups operating in the Sahara and Sahel regions are responsible for guerrilla attacks, suicide bombings, attacks against Government, military and civilian targets, as well as for gross abuse of human rights.
	As the Minister said, this is not just an issue for Mali, important as that is; it is an issue for stability across the region, especially as there are concerns that AQIM has been networking with other terrorists groups in the region, including in Nigeria, Somalia and Yemen. It is very clearly against the interests of international security that they should be allowed to establish a base in Mali. From our own Government’s experience of the successful intervention in Sierra Leone, we know how effective timely, well executed military action can be. That depends on good intelligence. There is a concern that the fall to Islamic militants of the southern town Konna—the strategically important town in Mali which led to the French taking action—appeared to take the international community by surprise. Why was that? Why was the intelligence not better, and how can it be improved?
	I realise the difficulty in commenting on security matters, but the French President, Francois Hollande, has ordered an increase in domestic security in the aftermath of recent French military operations in Mali and in Somalia. Now that we are engaged in assisting the French operation, can the Minister reassure the public that our Government are taking similar action here in the UK and also to protect the position of British citizens abroad?
	While supporting this action, the British people will want to understand the military consequences of the announcement. Our first current military priority must remain Afghanistan, so can the Minister say whether the deployment of British military aircraft will impact on ongoing operations in Afghanistan or other commitments? Will he also say over what period the aircraft will be operational in Mali, and what will be the cost to the defence budget?
	Given the leakage of weaponry from Libya, what assessment has the Minister made of the risk from surface-to-air missiles to our and other countries’ aircraft? I raised that point several times with Defence Ministers in 2011, so I hope that the current Ministers are more seized of its importance than Ministers were then.
	What will be the involvement of other nations, obviously beyond the commitment of the French? It has long been intended that the lead on supporting the Mali Government should be provided by an African-led force, so does not the present French deployment only emphasise the urgency of that? Will the Minister set out what steps are being taken to speed up efforts to achieve that, and when does he expect that the African force led by ECOWAS will reach the UN-authorised level of 3,300 personnel on the ground?
	We want to be clear about the underlying objectives of the mission. Is it viewed as a one-off British contribution, or does it mark the beginning of a phased engagement that could see further British capabilities playing a part in the future? There are press reports today about trainers being sent and RAF drones being prepared, and the Minister indicated that ground crew will be in theatre, so will he clarify the position?
	Essential as military action is, it is not sufficient, and the lasting stability that we all want in Mali, and in west Africa more generally, will be realised through a political process involving a successful, inclusive mechanism for transition to a permanent political authority in Mali. The involvement of regional partners, especially the Algerian Government, will be important. What discussions have taken place between us—and indeed our allies—and
	the Algerians on this matter? Will the Minister provide the House with the Government’s assessment of the likelihood of such a transition and the potential for lasting political stability and reconciliation?
	Long-term stability will come through the developmental process, which is why we support the governance and transparency fund in Mali—I am pleased that the Secretary of State for International Development is in the Chamber—and west African food aid programmes. In recognising the threat, it is essential that we also recognise the need to focus on longer term preventive measures that can limit the requirement for military action—that is to say that interventionism should be about proactive developmental work as much as reactive military responses. Will the Minister update the House on how the Government are ensuring that our developmental priorities are linked to our security objectives in north-west Africa?
	Finally, I am sure that the Minister, with his usual courtesy, will seek to ensure that any escalation beyond what has been announced today is brought to Parliament for its approval.

Mark Simmonds: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. His remarks will be extremely helpful as we continue diplomatic discussions with our international partners.
	I understand that the deployment of the two C-17 planes was discussed earlier during Defence questions. The reason it was decided that the Foreign Office should take the lead on the statement was the complex diplomatic and regional foreign policy implications of this limited deployment.
	The right hon. Gentleman was correct to highlight the UN Security Council resolution. As he will probably be aware, resolution 2085, which was adopted just before Christmas, was the second to set out, under chapter VII, a whole series of policy strands that need to be followed to promote security and territorial integrity in not only Mali, but the wider region. Included in those strands is the all-important matter of human rights, which he was absolutely right to mention.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked what we wanted to achieve, and I can summarise that in two specific strands: first, to diminish significantly the presence and influence of al-Qaeda in the Maghreb and the allied terrorist groups; and, secondly, to secure a democratic Government who are acceptable to the whole people of Mali—in the north and in the south—and who provide basic services. Priority should therefore be given to a lasting political process.
	The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that security, as it relates to the UK, is constantly monitored and under review, but at the moment we do not feel that it is necessary to raise the threat level beyond substantial. I can confirm that there will be no impact on the priority operations in Afghanistan, and the Prime Minister has made it categorically clear that the initial supporting deployment will be for a period of one week. He has also made it clear that no combat troops from the UK will be involved, and we have no plans to provide more military assistance.
	The right hon. Gentleman was also right to pinpoint the importance of the African Union and ECOWAS-led force. One of the proposals under discussion is to bring forward that deployment, and some member states of ECOWAS have already suggested that they will be willing to put troops into Mali. Togo and Senegal are the first two that immediately spring to mind. He is also right to highlight the importance of Algeria in this process. I can assure him that both the Prime Minister’s special envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O'Brien), and the Foreign Office have been discussing this matter with the Algerian Government and their representatives in New York. It is essential that we bring back the territorial integrity of Mali as part of what we want to do.
	The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the importance of long-term sustainable development, and that is why the Foreign Office is working closely with DFID to make sure that there is not only a political solution but sustainable economic development to break the cycle of conflict in the northern part of Mali.

Henry Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that Ansar Dine’s close links with Boko Haram is another reason why this organisation cannot be viewed in isolation, and obviously has potential to interact and encourage further terrorist activity? Does he also agree that if the EU deployed a training team, it would be in our interests to support it, and that it would make sense to do that from our training mission in Sierra Leone?

Mark Simmonds: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I know that as my predecessor in the Foreign Office he had significant involvement in monitoring this situation. He is absolutely right to highlight the potential danger and links between the respective terrorist organisations in the northern part of Mali, in northern Nigeria and elsewhere in the Sahel. He is also absolutely right to highlight the importance of the potential EU training mission to build capacity in the Malian military forces to ensure that they have the capacity to retake the northern part of Mali and to hold it once the territorial integrity has been regained.

Jack Straw: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) I commend the decision taken by the Prime Minister to give this practical support to the Government of France. Will the Minister spell out in a bit more detail the consequences for the west African Commonwealth countries and their stability were effective and firm action not taken to deal with the threat in Mali straight away?

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the Prime Minister’s correct decision. He is also right to highlight the potential for the terrorist activity taking place in the northern part of Mali spreading to other parts of not just the Sahel but west Africa. There are clearly potential dangers from the threats that have been articulated by those in al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb not only to those in Europe, but to economic and social development and to the alleviation of poverty, which is abject in some parts of the Sahel and in northern Mali, and to the commercial interests of UK firms in the region.

Martin Horwood: Some northern groups, such as the MNLA and even Ansar Dine are not straightforward jihadists, and there have been genuine grievances in the north around issues such as poverty and disempowerment, all of which suggests that a political solution as well as a political response might be possible, given enough subtle use of local intelligence and negotiating skills. Can Britain ensure that subtlety in negotiating skills are deployed alongside the Mirage jets, especially since Britain is widely regarded as rather more neutral in the region than France?

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point: this is not a simple picture. A variety of groups are involved in northern Mali—not only those associated with terrorist activities but, in some cases, those associated with the Tuareg people, who have not necessarily been sufficiently engaged in the government of Mali in recent years. An important process is in place, established under the auspices of the United Nations and set out in UN Security Council resolutions, that encourages dialogue and discussion with those who want to play a responsible part in trying to find a satisfactory and peaceful solution, in the long term, to the future of Mali as a credible sovereign state.

Angus Robertson: Will the Minister update the House on the planned European Union mission to Mali and the potential for UK participation in that? How would it operate in the circumstances that exist on the ground there? Will he give an update on the position of other EU partners, including the Danes, who have apparently been considering logistical support today?

Mark Simmonds: The European Union training mission in Mali, which will be discussed under the common security and defence policy, involves a few hundred training personnel being sent to Mali to build capacity in the Malian military and security forces to enable them to reduce the influence of the terrorist activity taking place in the northern part of the country. The detail is still being discussed, but recent events at the end of last week mean that these discussions need to be expedited so that the Malian military can have the capacity not just to retake the northern part of their country but to make sure that they can provide security and stability in the months and years ahead.

Crispin Blunt: When did contingency planning for this begin in the Ministry of Defence or at Permanent Joint Headquarters? How big is the small detachment in Bamako, and how many RAF personnel will be deployed to France?

Mark Simmonds: The discussions relating to the problem in northern Mali have been going on for some considerable time in the Foreign Office, the Ministry of the Defence and the Department for International Development. The response that the Prime Minister gave to the request from President Hollande, who was responding to a request from the Malian Government, was a crisis response. It was not a detailed, thought-through response—it has been thought through since—but a response to a particular need at a particular time of crisis. As my hon. Friend will be aware, these things are monitored persistently and continually. I do not have
	the numbers with me on the military personnel who are being deployed to Paris and Bamako, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the number of people operating the military aircraft and those who will be protecting them will be very small.
	In response to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), the Danes have said that they are going to make commitments on logistical support, as have others in the international community beyond the immediate region.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister will be well aware that there is a great deal of antagonism towards the Malian army and its human rights record in the north of the country, that the Tuareg people have been systematically excluded from the political process, and that that has laid very fertile ground for this conflict to break out. Is he concerned about mission creep and the unintended consequences of Britain’s and France’s involvement in a war that will create a growth in the forces he is seeking to oppose, rather than bring about the political settlement that is necessary to achieve peace and prosperity for the people of the country?

Mark Simmonds: I reiterate that the Prime Minister made it very clear that we were offering only limited logistical support—two C-17 planes and no combat troops—and have no plans to provide more military assistance. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, though, to say that it is necessary to bring the Tuareg and their representatives into the political process and the political governance structures of an integrated Malian state. That is being discussed at the United Nations and at a regional African level, led by the African Union and other senior figures in ECOWAS.

Bob Stewart: The House totally understands that no combat troops will be deployed, yet technical personnel will be sent to Bamako airfield to service the large aircraft that will presumably bring in equipment such as tanks. When those aircraft land, will those technical personnel include force protection personnel, possibly including personnel from the RAF Regiment, who are actually soldiers?

Mark Simmonds: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The capital of Mali is pronounced “Bam-ack-co”.
	Just to clarify the matter, there are currently no plans for NATO to be involved in Mali. The EU has drawn up a mission comprising 400 men, about 250 of whom will be force protection, and they are due to deploy later in the year. My hon. Friend asked a specific question about the number of military personnel who will be there to operate and to defend, if necessary, the aircraft when they are in Bamako. I will have to let him know about that.

Peter Hain: Does the Minister share my scepticism at the French Foreign Minister’s prediction that French soldiers will be out of Mali in a matter of weeks? That seems pretty unlikely to me. On the comparisons with Sierra Leone, does the Minister agree that it would be wrong to make the wrong comparisons? ECOWAS was deployed in Sierra Leone, and I understand that it will quite rightly be deployed in Mali, but the situation in Sierra Leone required
	British troops to go in and defeat the terrorists there. The second point on Sierra Leone is that there were no jihadi extremists with an international dimension, including al-Qaeda. Sierra Leone was a specific situation, fuelled by blood diamonds. For all those reasons, I believe that the situation in Mali could become an incredibly long-drawn-out morass, and we must be careful to promote a political solution to it.

Mark Simmonds: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He is right to highlight the complexity of the situation, and the fact that it will take some considerable time to arrive at a complete solution—a political resolution to the problem and providing stability to enable the northern part of the country to be part of the territorial integrity of Mali. The United Nations resolutions are absolutely clear that the political process is a fundamental part of finding a stable, long-term solution to the problem. I very much hope that the French-led military operation, to which we are providing limited logistical support, will be a short time-frame deployment. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the diplomatic, political and economic processes will take some time.

Mark Pritchard: Is it not the case that al-Qaeda and its affiliates are not dead, and that there is now an arc of terror from Somalia in the east of Africa right up to Algeria and now down to Mali in the west? Will the Minister confirm that, while Britain and France are offering support, there will be a Malian and African solution to the problem? Does the situation in Mali not underline the fact that today’s fragile states can become tomorrow’s failed states, which can have a direct and sometimes costly impact on the British national interest?

Mark Simmonds: I agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to set out the trajectory that can be put in place when the international community does not act expeditiously to resolve particular problems. The African Union and ECOWAS have been seriously engaged with this problem for some considerable time, and I can assure him and the House that, in all the discussions held with senior African political figures in the region and elsewhere, with the United Nations and with other political figures around the world by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O’Brien) and me, and by other Foreign Office and Defence Ministers with an interest in this area, there has been unanimity of concern and purpose that the international community needs to act in a co-ordinated way to resolve this difficult and dangerous problem.

Gavin Shuker: On the specific issue of the C-17 that is experiencing difficulties at present, is it the intention of the Ministry of Defence to release a further C-17 airframe should the problems with that aircraft not be resolved, and does it have the capacity to do so?

Mark Simmonds: That is an operational matter for the military to decide, but I can inform the hon. Gentleman and the House that the spare parts for the plane that is not functioning as it should be at present are on their way to Paris as we speak.

Julian Lewis: To what extent do the Government believe that the insurgency in the north of the country has indigenous support, and to what extent, if at all, are outside Governments supporting the insurgency, as far as we can tell?

Mark Simmonds: From the information that I have, I can inform my hon. Friend that there is limited support from the population who live in the northern part of Mali for the terrorist activities taking place. The atrocities that are being committed are appalling, including not just the prevalence of sexual violence and rape, but the abduction of children and persuading them, through appalling means, to participate in the military conflict. Stoning, amputations and other participation in extreme sharia law are also taking place. That is not the main reason we are providing limited logistical support, but it starts to paint a picture of why most of the people in northern Mali are not supportive of the terrorist activities and Islamist atrocities, and, indeed, why so many of them—approximately 200,000—have left the northern part of Mali.

Mark Durkan: As well as condemning the vicious behaviour of the rebel forces, will the Minister address more directly the clear human rights violations of Malian Government forces? On the complicated cast of support and tendencies on the rebel side, do the Government share the suspicion of some credible observers that there is Qatari and Saudi support for some of the rebel forces, and have they addressed those regimes about the matter?

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the importance of human rights, which he will not be surprised to hear is an integral part of the training that will be given to the Malian Government to ensure that they are well aware of the way in which the military should behave when they go into the northern parts of Mali. He will also not be surprised to hear that, on Saudi Arabian and Qatari involvement, I have seen no evidence to support the reports in the media that they are supporting terrorists in the northern part of Mali.

Margot James: Islamic extremists have been threatening civil society and committing gross atrocities in west Africa for many years, but the situation in Mali is a marked escalation of violence. As in Afghanistan, the Islamists have been brutal in their suppression of women’s rights in Mali. Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that he will work closely with the Department for International Development to ensure that Malian women are fully involved in any future conflict reconciliation?

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the appalling level of atrocities taking place against women, particularly in the northern part of Mali. I know that she will be pleased to support the Foreign Secretary’s preventing sexual violence initiative, which we are pushing forward and engaging with very seriously across many African countries and elsewhere in the world. My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to highlight the importance of the involvement of women at a much earlier stage in the resolution of conflict, both in northern Mali and elsewhere.

John McDonnell: The Minister in his statement reassured the House that British forces will not undertake a combat role in Mali. Could he give an assurance that British forces will not undertake a combat role in future unless there is a debate and vote in this House?

Mark Simmonds: I reiterate what I said before: the Prime Minister made it clear that this is limited logistical support and that there will be no combat troops on the ground. We have no plans to change the military support that we are giving.

Andrew Stephenson: Will my hon. Friend say more about the conversations that he has had with Mali’s neighbours, many of which share with it porous borders and the threat of al-Qaeda in Africa? Has he discussed the contribution that those neighbours could make to tackling the threat in Mali?

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend is right to make that point. The neighbouring countries are extremely concerned about the possibility of the terrorists expanding their area of control into their countries because of the porous borders. They are keen for the region, under the auspices of the international community at the United Nations, to resolve the problem as far as is possible as quickly as possible. There is great concern about the increasing migration from northern Mali that may occur if the problem continues, and the knock-on that that may well have in Europe. Another problem is the criminality in parts of the Sahel, including drug, cigarette and people smuggling. All those problems need to be resolved as much as is possible, and the international community is working to that end.

Paul Flynn: Why us again? We have no post-colonial obligations to Mali. Even without mission creep, we are already exposed to possible terrorist reprisals because of the actions that we have taken. We have seen 618 British lives lost in two wars where there was little direct threat to British interests. Why are the Government so eager to put at risk the lives of British citizens in order to become the policeman of the world?

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not share his analysis. As we have discussed, there are serious concerns not just in the UK, but in Europe and the rest of international community. China and Russia are concerned about what is happening as well. We are right to provide limited logistical support to the French, who are taking the lead because of their historical links with Mali. The two main reasons we are doing this are security and to support the region in ensuring that the conflict does not spread.

Rehman Chishti: Has a timeline for the transition to democracy been discussed, so that the military can go back to the borders, there can be a civilian Government and the United Kingdom cannot be accused of supporting a military dictatorship?

Mark Simmonds: Of course, there is not a military dictatorship in Mali at the moment. Although there was a coup d’état in March, pressure from ECOWAS, the
	regional African economic group, ensured that the military handed over to a civilian-led transitional Government. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of the success of a political track alongside the military track. That is why, as set out in both UN resolutions, there are detailed timelines for the transition from the current civilian-led Government to a democratic process. However, before that can happen, there needs to be security and stability in northern Mali to ensure that those who live there can participate in the democratic process.

Roger Williams: Charities based in my constituency have been active in northern Mali, in particular in Timbuktu, to improve the medical and educational facilities, the local economy and agriculture. They are concerned about the well-being of the people with whom they are working. Will the Minister commit to supporting those charities when a degree of stability and security have been re-established in starting their work again, which is greatly valued by the local people?

Mark Simmonds: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and, through him, I thank the charitable organisations in his constituency for their excellent and dedicated work. He will be aware of the terrible destruction of some historic Islamic icons that were an essential part of the historic make-up of Timbuktu. I am happy to provide support to the charitable organisations that he talked about. I suggest that he also take up the matter with my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers in the Department for International Development. It is essential that, when the security situation allows, humanitarian assistance and further assistance to build capacity in the provision of services are allowed in to ensure that people in northern Mali have a proper state under which they can lead happy and fulfilled lives.

Andrew Turner: I should like to pursue the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). There are obviously people in Mali supporting this action, but how many people are coming from outside the country to support it, and how many countries around Mali appear to be supporting it—not the Governments, of course, but the local people?

Mark Simmonds: I would say three things in response to my hon. Friend. The French deployment is of course at the request of the Malian Government, and the limited British support is at the request of the French. There is no doubt that the terrorist activities in the northern part of Mali have attracted people from outside northern Mali to participate, which is one reason that the matter needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later.
	In response to my hon. Friend’s final point about the support from regional countries, from the discussions that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends in various Departments have had, I think I can assure him that almost all Governments, and therefore people, in the region support finding a long-term, satisfactory solution to the current problems in Mali.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Second Reading

Theresa May: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Our laws need to keep pace with our changing society, and our law enforcement response needs to stay ahead of the changing threat. We have achieved a lot in the past two years. Our police reforms are working—crime is down 10%, and the front-line service is being protected. However, we need to do more to ensure that there is an effective, national response to the threat from serious, organised and complex crime. At the same time, the civil and criminal justice system that we inherited is just not equipped to deal with the challenges of today. Our courts need to be tough on wrongdoing, our non-custodial sentences need to command public confidence and our judiciary needs to reflect contemporary society. The Bill will address all those issues.
	Together, the Bill’s provisions will bring our justice system into the 21st century, ensure a focused, effective crime-fighting response to the threats that we face today and better prepare us to fight crime and secure our borders. Over the past two years, the Government have already implemented the most radical reforms that law enforcement has seen in a generation, but there remains a fundamental paradox in policing that we need to correct. While Governments over the years have focused on local policing, they have consistently neglected the threat from serious, organised and complex crime. That threat is far-reaching. It involves about 30,000 individuals across the country and 7,500 organised crime groups, at an estimated annual cost to the economy of up to £40 billion.
	However, the real cost of organised crime can be seen in the communities that it terrorises and the lives that it wrecks—the young people whose lives are cut short by drug addiction; the women who are trafficked and forced into prostitution; the children who are denied a childhood through sexual abuse and exploitation; and the elderly and vulnerable who are robbed of their savings through fraud.
	In 2011, we set out the first truly comprehensive strategy to combat the threat from organised crime, “Local to Global”. The Bill will establish the agency that will spearhead our operational response by cutting crime and protecting the public. Whereas the law enforcement effort is currently patchy and fragmented, the National Crime Agency will bring a decisive, intelligence-led response to organised crime.

Henry Bellingham: The Home Secretary will be aware that the Serious Organised Crime Agency has a network of offices around the world where it does an excellent job in combating narcotics and serious crime. Can she confirm that under the new arrangements those excellent networks and offices will be kept open, even though they may be more streamlined and even more cost-effective?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reflecting on the valuable and important work that SOCA does around the world. The international network will continue
	to be maintained. There may obviously be changes over time, depending on requirements and where the intelligence leads us, but it is intended that the international network, which is widely respected because it does such good work, will continue under the National Crime Agency.

Keith Vaz: I support the restructuring of the landscape of policing but I am a bit concerned about the budgets. When the head of the National Crime Agency gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee he said that the agency would have a budget of £400 million. As the Secretary of State knows, SOCA’s last budget was £400 million, and that of the National Policing Improvement Agency £392 million. The difference is £400 million. Where will the additional money from the merging of those two organisations end up?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman will know that not all parts that were under the NPIA are going into the NCA. Other sections of the NPIA are effectively going into parts of other organisations—some will come to the Home Office; the College of Policing that we have set up will look at standards and training. It is not possible simply to take the two budgets, add them together and say, “Where is the money going?” The money for the National Crime Agency will come from the precursor agencies, but as for other bodies, we will obviously have to look carefully at its budget at a time when forces and others are having to take cuts.

Julian Huppert: I want to say again how well regarded SOCA is. When the Home Affairs Committee looked at drugs policy around the world it was clear wherever we went that there was huge respect for SOCA, its brand and the work it does to counter narco-trafficking. One recommendation in the Committee’s report on drugs was that we should try to preserve the badge of SOCA—perhaps as a serious overseas crime arm or something—so that we would not have to explain to lots of countries why we had changed its name. Will the Home Secretary look at that idea?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for once again reiterating the good work that SOCA does, and I recognise that there is a brand issue. SOCA is being brought into the National Crime Agency and there will be a serious organised crime command within that agency. What the international parts of the NCA are called, and how they are configured with other commands in the NCA, are a matter currently under discussion.
	The National Crime Agency will be a visible, operational crime-fighting agency. It will have four commands—I have just referred to that issue—that will allow it to lead the national response on organised crime, border policing, economic crime and child exploitation. It will fulfil the coalition commitment to create a dedicated border policing command, ensuring a joined-up response to those who seek to enter the UK illegally or in order to do harm. It will be home to the national cybercrime unit, bringing together existing capabilities to keep the public safe from online threats.
	The NCA will hold the single authoritative intelligence picture of organised crime affecting the United Kingdom, underpinned by strong powers and duties to ensure it
	can share relevant information across law enforcement bodies. Part 1 of the Bill will give the National Crime Agency the ability to task and co-ordinate the law enforcement response to organised crime. Individual police forces will continue to play an important role in tackling criminal gangs, but the NCA will ensure its resources are used in the most effective way.
	To ensure the right operational response at the right level, the Bill also provides for co-operation and tasking between the NCA and police forces. I would expect agreement to be reached locally about which agency is best placed to take action against a given criminal group. Where—exceptionally—agreement cannot be reached, the Bill provides the necessary backstop powers for the NCA to direct the provision of assistance or that a particular task be undertaken.
	The NCA will be operationally focused with an experienced crime fighter at its head. The Bill provides for clear governance arrangements, with an operationally independent director general answering directly to the Home Secretary for delivering the agency’s strategic priorities. Keith Bristow, the NCA’s first director general, has made it clear that to undertake his role effectively he will need an open and responsive relationship with police forces and police and crime commissioners. The Bill will ensure this by requiring that the devolved Administrations and key figures in law enforcement are consulted on the NCA’s annual plan and its strategic priorities. From the director general downwards, NCA officers will need to be equipped with the necessary powers to do their job, so the Bill provides for NCA officers to be designated with the powers of a constable, customs officer and immigration officer.
	Given the vital crime-fighting role that NCA officers will have, it is inconceivable to me that their work should be disrupted through industrial action. Although my preference is to reach a no-strike agreement with the relevant unions, the Bill includes a back-stop statutory prohibition on industrial action. Few would wish to contemplate the police being able to strike, and I am pleased that in the other place no one argued against applying the same restrictions to operational NCA officers.
	Before moving on to other aspects of the Bill, I want to touch on a possible future role for the NCA in respect of counter-terrorism policing. The House will be aware that the other place voted to remove what was clause 2 of the Bill, which enabled counter-terrorism policing functions to be conferred on the NCA by order. The debate in the other place was about the level of parliamentary scrutiny that should be given to such a decision, not whether the NCA should take on counter-terrorism policing in the future.
	I have been clear that no decision on this issue has been taken and that none will be taken until after the NCA has been established and following a detailed review. However, the creation of a national crime agency with a national remit to combat serious, organised and complex crime invites the question whether it should take on national functions in respect of counter-terrorism policing. I do not come to this question with any preconceived ideas about what the answer should be, but it was prudent, in my view, for the Bill as originally introduced to have included a future-proofing provision.
	I also recognise the points raised in the other place about possible future decisions on counter-terrorism policing and sensitivities in Northern Ireland. Indeed,
	the original clause, as drafted, provided strong protection for the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in relation to counter-terrorism policing in Northern Ireland. I will continue to reflect on the debate in the other place before deciding how best to proceed, and I am sure that the House will want to come back to this issue during the later stages of the Bill’s consideration.
	As well as establishing the NCA, we need to ensure that both the NCA and its law enforcement partners have the powers they need to fight organised crime in all its manifestations. In combating fraud and other economic crimes, the Bill confers on the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service the ability to enter into deferred prosecution agreements with organisations alleged to have committed economic wrongdoing. These agreements will enable prosecutors to impose tough financial penalties and other sanctions on organisations for wrongdoing as an alternative to protracted court proceedings with uncertain outcomes.
	To support the fight against immigration crime, part 3 of the Bill extends to the UK Border Agency’s financial investigation teams certain surveillance and property interference powers available under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Police Act 1997, as well as asset seizure powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Under the law as it stands, there is an artificial distinction whereby these powers are available to Border Agency staff investigating customs offences, but not to those investigating immigration offences.
	On the Proceeds of Crime Act, we need to ensure that our ability to seize money and assets derived from criminal conduct is not undermined by legal loopholes. I can therefore announce that we will table amendments to the Bill that will restore the civil recovery scheme to the position it was commonly understood to be in prior to the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in the case of Perry. In its judgment, the Court held that the scheme only applied to property within the jurisdiction of the UK courts. This judgment significantly weakened the reach of the Proceeds of Crime Act, and it is right that we should take action to prevent those who engage in criminal conduct here from being able to put their ill-gotten gains beyond the reach of the UK courts.
	As well as strengthening enforcement at the border through the NCA and UKBA, the Bill will ensure that we can make the most effective use of resources by closing a long-standing loophole in the immigration system. Part 3 of the Bill removes the full right of appeal against refusal of an application for a visa as a family visitor. I know this provision has caused a number of hon. Members some disquiet.

David Winnick: It has indeed caused a great deal of disquiet and is a repeat of what happened when the Conservatives were last in office. Is it right and proper that someone refused permission to come here for a family visit is denied the right of appeal? In effect, that means that the immigration officer would decide on the application and be the jury. As I understand the position, at least 50% of such appeals are successful. Is that the reason why they are being abolished?

Theresa May: No. What I say to the hon. Gentleman and others who have concerns is that this is the only visitor category that retains a full right of appeal. As a result,
	I think we see some abuse in relation to this particular system. It is better to focus the resources available for the immigration appeals systems on those appeals, such as on the refusal of asylum, that could have a far greater impact on the lives of the individuals concerned.

Jack Straw: May I ask the Home Secretary to expand on two things? First, will she expand on her suggestion that initially the right of appeal in visitor cases extended beyond families, because that is simply not true? I introduced it as Home Secretary, and it was only ever applied in respect of family visitors and not more widely, as I remember. Secondly, can she explain what she means by the word “abuse”? Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have plenty of appeal cases, and the purpose of the appeal is to filter out those appeals that are genuine from those that may be an abuse. Since at least a third of appeals are successful, however, there is no possible argument for abandoning this right of appeal.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is right that the family visit route is the only visit route that has this right of appeal. Of course, it is not the case that in all cases this is being abused. I mention the word “abuse”, because what often happens in the system at the moment with these appeals is that a decision is taken by immigration officers on the basis of the evidence available to them at the application stage. What then happens when the appeal goes forward is that further evidence is brought forward, and it often does not have the same degree of attention and consideration given to it as is given by immigration officers to the evidence given to them in the application process. What we see is not an appeal against the decision of the immigration officer. In many cases—I would say in most cases—an appeal is heard on the basis of different evidence.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Theresa May: I am happy to give way to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and there are one or two others.

Jack Straw: Our constituencies differ. Over the past 30 years, I have dealt with hundreds of visitor appeals, and I have to say to the right hon. Lady that what she is being told by her officials is very different from my experience. In the vast majority of cases that go to appeal, the initial evidence has been made available by the applicant, here and abroad, to the entry clearance officers. It is the fact that that evidence has not been properly treated by the immigration officers that then leads to appeals. I ask her to look at the evidence base on which she is relying.

Theresa May: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is the case that in many cases the appeal process for family visit visas is being used just as a means to present fresh evidence into the appeals system in support of the application, and that is not the point of an appeals process. There is another point for individuals who go through the appeals process: if fresh evidence is available, they should make a fresh application. It takes less time for a fresh application to be considered than
	for an appeal to be considered. With a fresh application, people will on average be able to have a decision within 15 days, rather than eight months with the appeals process.

George Mudie: In all fairness to the applicants, the Home Secretary should withdraw the word “abuse”. Is it not true that the independent commissioner for the UK Border Agency continues to show concern about applicants being turned down for not sending in documents that they were never told in the first instance were required? If she continues to say the applicants are abusing the system, then in all fairness she must say that UKBA entry clearance officers are abusing the system. Does she not agree that the system does not need to be abolished, but to be made to work more sensibly?

Theresa May: Let me say to all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have raised this issue that analysis of a sample of 363 allowed family visit visa appeal determinations in April 2011 showed that new evidence produced at appeal was the only reason for the tribunal’s decision in 63% of those cases. In only 8% of cases was new evidence not at least a factor in the allowed appeal. If people have new evidence, they can make a fresh application. It will be heard and considered, and a decision will be given to them in far less time than it takes to go to appeal. A system of appeal is about appealing against the original decision, not appealing against the original decision plus bringing forward extra evidence.

Julian Huppert: rose—

Theresa May: I really think I have answered questions about this issue, which I am sure will continue to be a matter for debate in the course of the Bill’s progress.
	Just as we are bringing the law enforcement response into the 21st century, so this Bill will ensure that our courts and our laws can meet the challenges of today’s society. Part 2 of the Bill will enable the courts to deal robustly with wrongdoing and will ensure confidence in the system of non-custodial sentencing. For serious offenders—particularly those who use violence—a prison sentence will usually be the appropriate punishment, but where a custodial sentence might not be appropriate, the public must have confidence in the alternatives. A community order that is not perceived as a credible sanction or a fine that is not paid simply brings the criminal justice system into disrepute.
	The provisions in part 2 will change that. For the first time, the courts will be required to include a punitive element in every community order. They will also be able to impose a new electronic monitoring requirement, which makes use of global positioning system technology to monitor an offender’s whereabouts. This will protect the public by deterring crime and assisting with detection. Alongside that, the Bill provides for courts to defer sentencing after conviction to allow time for restorative justice. We know that around 85% of victims who participate in restorative justice conferences are satisfied.

Robert Buckland: I warmly welcome the provisions relating to restorative justice. Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that restorative
	justice will work properly only if the victim is involved and consents to it? In many serious cases, restorative justice will not be the right option.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is essential that the victims are comfortable with going through the restorative justice process. The figures show that around 85% of victims who participate are satisfied with the response, but it is important that no victim should feel that restorative justice is being in any sense imposed on them. It must be something that they are willing to go through—he is indeed right about that. Restorative justice can also support rehabilitation by helping offenders to realise the consequences of their wrongdoing. This provision will help to put victims at the heart of justice.
	At the same time, we are strengthening the ability of the Courts Service to exchange information with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions, so that the courts have the income and benefits data they need to set fines at a level that properly reflects the means of the offender and supports the enforcement of those fines. We are also making it clear that the courts can take account of an offender’s assets when determining the level of a fine, which will ensure that criminals who seek to disguise their wealth are made to pay their dues.
	Finally, the provisions in part 2 will bring the judiciary into this century by ensuring that it reflects the communities it serves. Progress has been made in recent years, but it has been slow. Just over one in five judges in our courts are female, and the proportion of black and ethnic minority judges hovers at around just 5%. We need to do better, particularly at the upper echelons of the judiciary. The Bill therefore includes a number of provisions to encourage progress in this area, including provision for part-time and flexible working in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. At the same time, we are providing that where there are two candidates of equal merit, preference may be given to a candidate from an under-represented group.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way to me a second time. I warmly support what she is proposing. Some of us have been campaigning on the issue for a number of years. I think this will have an effect and will change the nature of the judiciary in this country. I hope, however, that one other issue will also be followed up. I see the Lord Chancellor sitting next to the Home Secretary, and I want to raise the issue of feedback. When in the past ethnic minority and women candidates have applied and been turned down, they have not received effective feedback on how to develop their career in the judiciary. It is not just about changing the law; it is about changing the practices of the Judicial Appointments Commission and the Ministry of Justice to make sure that people have this information.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman raises what I think is an important point, and I can assure him that the Lord Chancellor has heard what he said, and will reflect on those comments and look into that particular issue.
	As we bring our courts into the 21st century, our laws must follow suit. Part 3 provides—

Henry Bellingham: Before my right hon. Friend moves on from part 2, may I ask her for a quick bit of advice? Does she agree that the single family court idea is a very good one? Does she agree that one crucial part of family law is the need for more mediation? Can she assure us that mediation will be built into the system in as many places as possible?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. The introduction of the single family court is an important measure. I believe that it will get over previous problems with variations in approach and application, which is significant. It has long been my view that, as far as possible, we should encourage mediation—I know it is being looked at by the Ministry of Justice—and it could be a way of reducing the antagonism and bitterness that, sadly, happen all too often when matters get into the courts rather than being dealt with beforehand through mediation.

Jonathan Djanogly: Before my right hon. Friend moves on from part 2, does she agree that it is bizarre that in 2013 we have this Victorian situation whereby each county court represents its own individual personality? I welcome the changes in the Bill, but will she lean over and ask her right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary whether we will move quickly on this issue to improve justice in the county courts and to cut costs?

Theresa May: Yes, we will do everything we can to improve efficiency in the system and we will look at the whole of issue of individual county courts versus a national county court system, as it were. This is part of the Bill. My hon. Friend makes a valuable point about the personalities of county courts.
	Part 3 of the Bill provides for a new drug-driving offence. Over the past 40 years, the drink-driving laws have played an important role in making our roads safer. There is already an offence of driving while impaired through drugs, but it is difficult to secure a conviction, given the need to prove impairment. Drugs were a contributory factor in about 3% of fatal road incidents in Great Britain in 2011, resulting in 54 deaths. This compares to 9% or 166 deaths from drink-driving. We need to adopt the same robust approach to drug-driving as we do to drink-driving.

Gavin Barwell: rose—

Julian Huppert: rose—

Theresa May: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), whom I was about to commend.

Gavin Barwell: In that case, I should have waited before intervening. I first raised the issue of drug-driving at Prime Minister’s Questions on behalf of my constituent Lillian Groves, who was killed outside her home property by a driver under the influence of drugs. The Prime Minister met Lillian’s family, and on their behalf, I would like to thank him, as well as Home Office, Justice and Transport Ministers, for the speed with which they have enacted the change in law that the family was looking for.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I commend him for the campaign he has led on this issue, following the death of his constituent Lillian Groves. He has been resolute on this issue, and I am pleased that we have been able to find a vehicle through which to bring forward this new offence so quickly. The Bill introduces an offence of driving with a concentration of a specified controlled drug in the body in excess of the specified limit for that drug.

Julian Huppert: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way to me a second time. Much depends on what the aim is and how the specified limit should be set. Will she confirm that the aim is to set a level for drugs that is equivalent to the current legal alcohol limit in the blood of 0.08%, and to measure the drug concentration that would indicate the same level of impairment? Is my understanding correct?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary and I are currently considering the controlled drugs to be covered by the offence and the limits that should be set for such drugs for driving purposes. As a Government, we have taken a robust, zero-tolerance approach on illicit drugs through the drugs strategy. As we consider the detail of this policy, we will want to send an equally strong message that people simply cannot take illegal drugs and drive.

David Burrowes: I particularly commend the provisions on drug-driving. Given the problems I have seen as a practitioner, I am aware of the difficulty of proving the offence. Has consideration been given to further extending provisions beyond controlled drugs to include the impact of psychoactive substances, not least legal highs? We know of the impact they can have in terms of impaired driving, so has consideration been given to broadening the nature of the offence in this provision?

Theresa May: As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the Secretary of State for Transport and I are looking at what should be covered by this offence, taking into account the drugs that can be identified and the levels that should be set for them. The Department for Transport is taking expert advice on what it is possible to identify within the bloodstream and within people’s bodies at the time that tests are taken.
	I know that legitimate concerns have been expressed about the impact of this offence on those who take controlled drugs on prescription—for long-term pain relief, for example—but we have no intention of preventing people from driving where they are taking medication in accordance with medical advice, so the Bill includes provision for a medical defence. We will also want to take into account views expressed in response to the required consultation on the draft regulations, but I believe we must take a strong stand against those who would put other lives at risk by driving under the influence of drugs.
	The Bill also delivers on our coalition commitment to ensure that the law is on the side of people who defend themselves when confronted by an intruder in their home. Few situations can be more frightening than when someone’s own home is violated. Faced with that
	scenario, a person will do what it takes to protect themselves and their loved ones. They cannot be expected dispassionately to weigh up the niceties of whether the level of force they are using is proportionate in the circumstances. If the intruder is injured, perhaps seriously, in such an encounter, the householder should not automatically be treated as the perpetrator where, with hindsight, the force used is considered to have been disproportionate. Clause 30 will ensure that, in such a context, the use of disproportionate force can be regarded as reasonable, while continuing to rule out the use of grossly disproportionate force.
	I know this change in the law will be particularly welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who have campaigned on this issue for a number of years. I congratulate them on having successfully brought this issue to the attention of Parliament and the public.
	Let me now deal with clause 38, which would remove the word “insulting” from the offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. This was added to the Bill in the other place. I respect the view taken by their lordships, who had concerns that I know are shared by some in this House about section 5 encroaching upon freedom of expression. On the other hand, the view expressed by many in the police is that section 5, including the word “insulting”, is a valuable tool in helping them to keep the peace and maintain public order.
	There is always a careful balance to be struck between protecting our proud tradition of free speech and taking action against those who cause widespread offence with their actions. The Government support the retention of section 5 as it currently stands, because we believe that the police should be able to take action when they are sworn at, when protesters burn poppies on Armistice day and in similar scenarios. We have always recognised that there are strong views in both Houses. Looking at past cases, the Director of Public Prosecutions could not identify any where the behaviour leading to a conviction could not be described as “abusive” as well as “insulting”. He has stated that
	“the word ‘insulting’ could safely be removed without the risk of undermining the ability of the CPS to bring prosecutions.”
	On that basis, the Government are not minded to challenge the amendment made in the other place. We will issue guidance to the police on the range of powers that remain available to them to deploy in the kind of situation I described, but the word “insulting” should be removed from section 5.

Edward Leigh: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend. Many of us have been campaigning on this issue for years, and the Government have listened—well done.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend.
	Finally, let me give the House notice of another set of amendments that we will table in Committee. Members will recall that on 16 October, when I made a statement on our extradition arrangements, I indicated that I would present legislation as soon as parliamentary time allowed to make two key changes to the Extradition Act 2003. The first would introduce a new forum bar to extradition, and the second would transfer to the High
	Court the Home Secretary’s responsibilities for considering representations on human rights grounds. I have decided that we should seize the opportunity provided by the Bill so that we can give effect to the changes as soon as possible.
	I am grateful to the House for allowing me to explain those key provisions. The Bill will build on our reforms of the policing landscape by delivering an effective national response to serious and organised crime and securing our borders, while also strengthening public confidence in the justice system. Its provisions are timely and important, and I commend it to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. A time limit will be announced after the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has finished her speech. Members who are preparing the length of their speeches in their heads should think in terms of not much more than 10 minutes.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary has made some big promises about the Bill today. She has said that it will transform the fight against organised crime—indeed, to hear her speak one would think that there was no fight against organised crime before the Bill was drawn up—and that it would solve the problem of economic crime, transform punishment and rehabilitation, stop illegal immigration, and save money, all at the same time. One might think that this Bill alone would persuade all dangerous criminals to stop in their tracks and embark on a life of charity work.
	You will forgive Labour Members, Mr Deputy Speaker, if we express a bit of scepticism about the claims that the Home Secretary has made—although we support many of the measures in the Bill—because we have heard such promises about her legislation from her before. When she stood before us to present one Home Office measure, she told us:
	“With a strong democratic mandate from the ballot box, police and crime commissioners will hold their chief constable to account for cutting crime.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 708.]
	That “strong democratic mandate” turned out to be 15% of the public voting and 3.6% voting Conservative. Introducing the terrorism prevention and investigation measures, she promised that
	“public safety is enhanced, not diminished, by appropriate and proportionate powers.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 69.]
	As a result of those measures, terror suspect Ibrahim Magag is now on the run, and unless the Home Secretary has any more information with which to update the House, we must assume that she, and we, still have no idea where he is. He was last seen getting into a black cab.
	The Home Secretary told us:
	“it’s clear… that we can improve the visibility and availability of the police to the public.”
	She also said that
	“lower budgets do not automatically have to mean lower police numbers”.
	The result has been 15,000 fewer police officers, and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has concluded that the police are less visible and less available too. So we start with a certain caution about the promises that the Home Secretary has made. The Bill does not live up to the billing that she has given it. Even when the intentions are good, there are areas in which the detail does not stack up, and Labour Members believe that she is still missing an opportunity to change course on some of the wider policies that are making it harder for the police to keep the public safe.
	Parts of the Bill are very valuable. We believe that more can and should be done to strengthen the fight against serious and organised crime, and that more can and should be done to introduce greater diversity into the judiciary. I welcome the points that the Home Secretary has made about that. We also support stronger action against drug-driving. People who drive dangerously, and even kill and maim, on our roads because they have taken illegal drugs and cannot control their cars should be caught and prosecuted. We also think it right for gang injunctions to be imposed by the youth courts; and it is certainly about time we did away with the offence of scandalising the judiciary. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) will comment on many of those justice issues when she responds to the debate.
	Let me say a little more about the central reforms in the Bill. The central measure is intended to strengthen the Serious Organised Crime Agency and to rename it. In fact, the vast majority of the National Crime Agency’s work will be what SOCA does now. We agree that SOCA should be strengthened: it has done very important work, but given the changing patterns of national and international crime, it should have more powers and scope. The valuable work that it has done so far, which the Home Affairs Committee has looked at, includes achieving a conviction rate of more than 90%, and bringing to justice people involved in the organising of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, slavery and cybercrime. However, the police need to do more in certain key areas in which action by individual forces alone is not sufficient, including serious organised crime—which can cost up to £40 billion a year—and people trafficking. The number of international and cross-border crimes has been growing. Economic crimes cost an estimated £38 billion a year, and new offences such as cybercrime are becoming increasingly complex to handle.

Keith Vaz: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the worrying things about SOCA, despite its success in many respects, was that it seized less than it cost overall? It is important not just to create organisations such as the National Crime Agency, but to benchmark them to ensure that they meet the expectations of the public and Parliament.

Yvette Cooper: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Evidence given to his Home Affairs Committee by the new head of the National Crime Agency suggested that it did not necessarily expect to increase the amount that it seized, so we shall want to monitor its work closely. As my right hon. Friend says, it is likely that more action will be expected. We think that more can be done overall by all police forces, particularly in regard to matters such as the proceeds of crime and child exploitation.
	The recent Savile case shows quite how much needs to done throughout society to increase protection and prevention.
	We agree that more action is needed in each of those areas, and the Bill provides an opportunity to ensure that more action is taken, but if we look at each area in turn it is not clear to us that the Home Secretary’s proposed measures will be sufficient. She has said, for example, that the National Crime Agency will be able to do more to deal with international crime, but in fact its hands will be tied. She wants to pull out of European co-operation on justice and home affairs. She is keen to opt out of the European arrest warrant, and wants to ditch the sharing of data with other European police officers on sex offenders who travel across borders. The arrest warrant has been used to bring back 39 people suspected of serious child sex offences, 65 people suspected of drug trafficking and money laundering, and 10 people suspected of human trafficking. Those are the very criminals whom the National Crime Agency is supposed to pursue.
	It would be helpful if the Home Secretary, or the Minister who responds to the debate, told us how many of the police officers and crime experts who are currently working on international and cross-border crime support the plans to opt out of European co-operation, and how many of them think that the work of the National Crime Agency will be easier or harder if the Government opt out.

Jonathan Djanogly: On the basis of the right hon. Lady’s rationale, I assume that she will be very pleased by the introduction of the single family court. There will be a single point of entry between the courts, and judges will work together in those courts so that the child cases to which she has referred can be dealt with better and faster.

Yvette Cooper: I think that the reforms of family courts will have a great many benefits. They are the result of independent reviews, and a considerable amount of work over some time, to establish how those courts can be improved, particularly from the point of view of the children involved. We certainly support measures in the family courts that can improve support for children, including child protection.
	There are clearly problems on the international front in regard to the work that the NCA will do. Let me now deal with some of the issues on the domestic front. The Home Secretary has said that she wants to strengthen national action against serious crimes, but, as was pointed out by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the new National Crime Agency faces increased responsibilities with a budget 20% lower than that of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. It will supposedly do everything that SOCA did while picking up new responsibilities from the National Policing Improvement Agency, doing extra work at Britain’s borders, and expanding work on tackling cybercrime and on tackling economic and financial crime. It is going to do this with, by my assessment, a cut in the budget of at least £80 million—as the Home Affairs Committee Chair has suggested, the budget cut could be considerably more.
	The detail of how the NCA will work remains confused. We still do not know how it will relate to the new police and crime commissioners, who will not be consulted on the NCA’s strategic priorities but whose forces will have to respond and do what the NCA says. Legally, the Bill provides for the NCA to direct chief constables over resources and priorities in their areas, but can a police and crime commissioner who disagrees sack the chief constable? How will this be resolved? What will the relationship be between the NCA, the UK Border Force and the UK Border Agency? Will the NCA be able to task border officials in the way that it will be able to task chief constables, or is the border command to be simply a co-ordinating committee? Questions are also unanswered in relation to the economic command. What will the relationship be with the Serious Fraud Office and with the City of London police on economic crime? Will the NCA be able to set tasks for the SFO, or is the economic command just another co-ordinating committee?
	None of those things is clear. The Home Office has promised that many of the questions would be answered by the framework document, yet it still has not been published. Under pressure from their lordships, the Home Secretary has finally published an outline framework document, but it is hardly illuminating; all it gives is a list of bullet points. For example, it contains the heading:
	“Accountability to the Home Secretary”.
	Under that heading the bullet point simply reads:
	“How that accountability relationship will be supported by Home Office officials”.
	That is all it says, so this is not a framework document; it is simply a Home Secretary to-do list.
	Again, we are being given a lack of detail, even though we know that detail matters. The Home Office’s failure to provide the detail in debates in this House on previous legislation has caused considerable problems; one such example was the failure on detail that meant that £350,000 had to be spent reprinting the ballots for the Welsh police and crime commissioner elections.
	Big policy areas are also not being addressed here. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre is being absorbed into the NCA, despite the reservations of many experts. More importantly, the Home Secretary is missing the opportunity to strengthen the work on child protection and tackling sexual exploitation at a vital time, and to set up an overarching review, led by child protection experts, into how Jimmy Savile was able to get away with terrible abuse of children over many years.
	The Home Secretary also referred to the counter-terror measures raised in the House of Lords, where her proposal to transfer counter-terror from the Met to the NCA has raised considerable alarm. I welcome her saying that she will consider the points raised on whether that should be done in primary legislation rather than in secondary legislation. The former Met commissioner Lord Blair said:
	“in my lifetime no change more significant than this in the policing arrangements to protect our nation has ever been contemplated…Such a decision deserves primary legislation”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2012; Vol. 741, c. 115.]
	Former Met commissioner Lord Condon has said:
	“This is a hugely important matter that deserves primary legislation rather than an affirmative order…History tells us that
	more than 80% of terrorist incidents in this country happen in London.”—[
	Official Report, House of Lords,
	27 November 2012; Vol. 741, c. 116.]
	Of course, even more of the counter-terror problems will lie with the Met now that the Home Secretary has removed relocation from control orders.

Theresa May: May I just correct the right hon. Lady on one point she made? She said that this Bill dealt with my “proposal” to move national responsibility for counter-terrorism policing from the Met to the NCA. I made it clear in my speech that I have no preconceived idea on this matter, but as we set up a national crime agency to deal with serious, organised and complex crime it is right that the question be asked, when that agency is up and running, about where it is appropriate for counter-terrorism policing to lie. That will take place after a proper review. As I say, I have no preconceived idea about this, so it is not the case that this Bill deals with a specific proposal.

Yvette Cooper: I must then say to the Home Secretary that she does not need to legislate for it now. If she has genuinely not made a decision, why take pre-emptive legislative powers for a decision she has not yet taken and a review she has not yet done? She will know that the nature of the Home Office means that Home Office legislation is always being introduced, and there will plenty of opportunity for primary legislation and a proper debate in this House and in the other place. How are Members of this House and Members of the House of Lords, where, as she knows, there is considerable expertise on counter-terror and on policing, supposed to debate a hypothetical proposition—she now says she has not yet made it—and a decision she has not yet reached? It would be far better to respect the expertise in the other place and the views of this House by not legislating now on this matter, by holding a proper review, and by having that genuine debate on it and then coming back to the House with proper proposals in primary legislation, if she so concludes that it is the right thing to do.
	We will also wish to discuss other areas of the Bill in Committee. I hope that the Home Secretary will also now accept the Lords amendments on the regulation of bailiffs, adding safeguards to prevent abuse. We also hope that she will support our proposals to go even further with stronger powers for immigration officers to tackle illegal immigration. She has raised the issue of the forum bar, on which she wishes to introduce amendments, and we hope that extensive discussion can take place on that. We have discussed it briefly when she has made statements to the House before and we are keen to work with her on how to make that bar effective. As she knows, some legislation is already on the statute book on this issue, but all sides have found it difficult to work out how to make the detail work. We therefore look forward to those discussions.
	We also wish to discuss stronger checks and balances for the NCA through the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The safeguards in respect of the IPCC looking at the NCA are astonishingly weak in the Bill, and we hope the Home Secretary will strengthen them. She will also know from the points that hon. Members have made that there is concern about visa appeals. The point she needs to consider is that in a third of cases looked at by the inspector the entry clearance officer
	had not considered the evidence properly. That was not about new evidence; the entry clearance officer had not considered the existing evidence properly. So there is a serious concern about the quality of the initial decision making.
	We also want to deal with the issue of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. I hope that before that comes up in Committee the Home Secretary and her Ministers will be able to provide the House with an assessment of the impact of section 5 on different groups, particularly vulnerable and minority ones. Many people have said that the existing section 5 has formed some kind of protection for them, so it would be helpful to know that before we reach that point in Committee.

Alan Beith: Does that mean the Labour party does not share the welcome voiced by the two parties on the Government Benches for the Government’s acceptance of clause 38 and the removal of the word “insulting” from the Public Order Act?

Yvette Cooper: Like the Home Secretary, I have always questioned whether there was a case for removing this measure in the first place. If she has carried out further analysis and believes it can be removed while maintaining protection for groups that might be discriminated against or where the police need to have the flexibility to respond effectively, we would be keen to see that evidence before we get to Committee. It is important to ensure that we protect freedom of speech, but it is also important to ensure that we can protect vulnerable groups from unfair discrimination.

Julian Huppert: rose—

Edward Leigh: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will give way, but I say to hon. Members that this issue will be covered in Committee.

Julian Huppert: Has the right hon. Lady seen the letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions highlighting the fact that there has been no prosecution using this provision that could not have been achieved in other areas? There is a big difference between insulting and abusive action, and if there is no risk to prosecutions free speech can be safely defended in this case.

Yvette Cooper: I am aware of the points the DPP has made, but I simply ask, because this is important, that the Government undertake an equality impact assessment on the impact on different groups, in order to be sure that they are doing the right thing before this matter reaches Committee.

Edward Leigh: It is not clear what the Labour party’s official position is. This consultation has gone on for more than a year, and everybody knows the arguments one way and the other. The Labour party opposed clause 38 in the other place, so what is it going to do in Committee?

Yvette Cooper: As did the Government in the other place, and we look forward to their evidence on this measure’s impact on different minority groups.
	The problem with the Bill is that it will not deal with the wider difficulties facing policing and the perfect storm of the Home Secretary’s making that we now face. At a national level, she has abolished the NPIA without any clue about what to do with its functions. We now have the National Crime Agency, the College of Policing, NewCo—the new IT company—police and crime commissioners and police and crime panels, but we have no clear view of how any of them will work together. The Bill does not set out how that clarity should be provided.
	At the same time, the Home Secretary is cutting 15,000 police officers—the very people who need to do the job of fighting serious and organised crime in every community. The number of young police officers as new entrants has dropped by 50%, yet the most experienced officers are going too. Half of all police forces do not have a permanent chief constable and the officers left in the middle are facing a crisis of morale, with 95% saying that they believe that the Government and this Home Secretary do not support them.
	Fewer criminals are being arrested and fewer are being prosecuted, international co-operation is being undermined and counter-terror powers are being weakened; now there is confusion over these reforms. I hope that the Home Secretary will make further improvements to the Bill, but, more importantly, I hope that she will rethink her wider policy on policing and crime before it is too late.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. We will start with a 12-minute limit on speeches, although that does not mean that Members have to take 12 minutes, of course. That limit may well be reduced later this evening.

Rebecca Harris: I want to support some of the many excellent provisions in the Bill, and in particular the inclusion of drug-driving as an offence on which the police can act at the roadside in a proportionate and simple manner. There have been many such cases of which I have been made aware and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on having campaigned on the issue with great success.
	I am disappointed that the Government have not taken the opportunity to go slightly further and consider road traffic offences more generally, including the laws on those who drive while medically unfit. Of course, the problems caused by drug-drivers and those who drive while medically unfit are incredibly similar from a public safety point of view. In both cases it is an offence to drive, but the law is not effective in preventing the problem.
	Arguing for the drug-driving offence in another place, Lord Henley recognised that although being unfit through drugs is an offence, it is not prosecuted often enough because of the difficulty the police have in trying to prove that the driver is sufficiently impaired. That has hampered the police in taking drug-impaired drivers
	off our roads and the new provision will give the police a proportionate power to do so and punish them appropriately for endangering the public.
	I do not consider those who drive while unfit for medical reasons in the same category as drug-abusing drivers; nor do I believe that they should necessarily be punished as severely as they might be under the Bill. Drugged and drunk drivers have made a decision to incapacitate themselves, whereas those driving while unfit for medical reasons might not have done. The effect on our roads is the same, however, as that driver is incapacitated while driving a vehicle that can kill.
	The police should have the power to take a licence away or prevent someone they believe to be unfit to drive from doing so until it can be established otherwise. We know that 1,100 casualties and 50 deaths are caused every year by drug-driving, but I cannot quote the number of casualties on our roads caused by people driving while they are medically unfit—for example, because their eyesight is impaired—because we do not record the figures. In my short time as a Member of this House, however, several tragic cases have been brought to my attention.
	One such case was brought to me by one of my constituents, whose niece, Natalie Wade, died on the way to buy her wedding dress, mown down by a driver who categorically knew he was unable to see appropriately to drive but continued to do so. He refused to recognise his obligation to report that to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which is what we require medically unfit drivers to do. Hon. Members might also be aware of the case of a lady called Cassie McCord, who was killed by a driver with impaired eyesight who had been stopped three days earlier by the police. The police were unable to prevent him from driving, he continued to do so and she died when he ran her over only three days later.
	We do not stop such people driving but we need to avoid these preventable deaths. The very least we could do is allow the police to do their job, and when they recognise that individuals are clearly unfit to drive for whatever reason—drug-driving or medical impairment—we should allow them to act.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Lady is making an extremely good point and she is absolutely right to say that we must focus on the level of impairment, not the cause. If it is a question of road safety, we must focus on a solution whereby people who are unfit to drive for medical reasons or because of drugs or alcohol that they have recently consumed should be unfit because they have reached a threshold of impairment, not because of the cause of that impairment.

Rebecca Harris: Someone who is apprehended by the police because their driving is impaired by alcohol can have their vehicle taken from them at the roadside, and the new provisions will go a long way towards ensuring that that happens more often with drug-driving and that we can prosecute drug-drivers more readily and more easily. If a person fails a roadside sight test, however, such as that which one needs for a driving licence, it is impossible for the police to take their keys and require them to have an eye test. Perhaps we could extend the scope of the Bill—I hope in Committee that
	we can take the provision one step further and consider those who are medically unfit to drive, for whatever reason.

Paul Goggins: My earlier ministerial responsibility in the Home Office tempts me to say a great deal about the Bill, which I recognise as a classic Home Office Christmas tree Bill. If time allowed, I would want to say more about why I believe clause 30 to be completely unnecessary, given the repeated assurances of the police and Crown Prosecution Service that if householders act instinctively and honestly in defending themselves they will always find the law on their side. I would also want to say a little more about my views on clause 38, although the Home Secretary has confirmed the Government’s position on that. I welcome that decision—[Interruption.] I gather that my welcome is welcomed, but I doubt that the sky will fall in as a result of the Government’s decision. We shall see.
	In the time available, I want to focus on two particular areas. The first concerns clause 31 and schedule 15, which deal with non-custodial sentencing. I support part 4 of schedule 15, which deals with electronic monitoring. Tagging continues to play an important part in the criminal justice system, but there is a case for extending electronic monitoring beyond that and including location monitoring. In certain cases, the technology is available, at a cost that is coming down all the time, to allow individuals who pose a threat to others or the wider community to be monitored. I hope that the Home Secretary and other Ministers will take the new power when it is enacted and use it imaginatively to enhance public protection.
	I have less problem than some of my good friends in the House of Lords with making it mandatory for community sentencing to have a punitive element. The Home Secretary is right. If victims and the public at large are to be expected to have confidence in community sentencing and if we are to ensure that prison is reserved for the serious and dangerous offenders, the public will expect a punitive element to that sentencing. Great care should be exercised, however, and it is important that the Minister should offer assurances tonight and in Committee about the care that is being taken to ensure that the punitive element is purposeful and offers protection for vulnerable offenders, particularly those who suffer from mental health problems. It is entirely possible for a punitive element to be rehabilitative at the same time. When we make such provisions, we need to trust the sentencers to ensure that they get the balance right between all the different principles of sentencing in each individual case.
	I welcome part 7 of schedule 15, which could be renamed the Corston clause. It requires that special provision should be made for female offenders. We have talked about that for a long time and Baroness Corston did some amazing work in her report. She, like many others, continues to advocate that provision and part 7 gives legislative enforcement to her recommendations.
	I am strongly in favour of part 2 of schedule 15, which covers the deferral of sentence to allow for restorative justice. We are all increasingly agreed that if an apology, explanation or some form of reparation can be offered
	to a victim of a crime that helps them to rebuild their lives following the trauma that they have had to face, we should all support that. That is at the heart of what restorative justice is all about. More detail is needed, and I hope that in Committee Members will have the opportunity to explore in more detail what might be required to use the provisions in the Bill as a launch pad for further development.
	The Bill sets a time limit of up to six months for the deferral. That is too vague. I draw the Home Secretary’s attention to the Northern Ireland Youth Conference Service, which requires a deferral of four weeks only. Within that four-week period, a restorative justice conference must take place and a plan must be drawn up and brought back to the court. I can tell the Home Secretary that in 97% of cases, that task is performed and completed within the four-week period. There is a 70% victim participation rate and a 90% victim satisfaction rate. I commend that to the Home Secretary and I hope that in Committee the time scale issue can be given closer attention. It should be made clear in the Bill that victims have a right to attend a restorative justice conference. It should not be left to local discretion or priority; it should be clear in the legislation.
	The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will need to say more about how he intends to make sure that consent is obtained, particularly if deferral is being considered at the end of a trial which has been difficult, when emotions are raw and an understanding of restorative justice may not be at the forefront of people’s mind, especially if someone has been the victim of a crime. We need a better understanding of how consent is to be obtained, because the consent of the victim is crucial to the process.
	The Minister also needs to make it clear, perhaps in the Bill as well, that restorative justice is not just for minor offences or for cases on the cusp of custody. Restorative justice offers extensive capability and opportunity, right across. I confess that I was sceptical about whether restorative justice could be used in, for example, serious sexual offences, but having met and heard a victim of rape speak about her restorative justice process and how it had helped her to rebuild her life, I think we should set no limits on the use of restorative justice if the victim of the crime feels that it can be helpful to them in rebuilding their life.
	We need to understand how the deferral process interacts with other objectives which the court might have—for example, setting time limits on delay. We could not have a court that was making good use of restorative justice being penalised because that was leading to delay in the outcome of the court process. We await further detail from the Minister about how that will happen.
	My final point in relation to schedule 15 and the restorative justice element, about which I hope we will see more detail as the Bill is considered by a Committee, is that all this must be underpinned by appropriate training and quality standards for restorative justice right across the country. The Restorative Justice Council, to which I pay tribute for the tremendous work that it has done over a number a years, is leading this work, and I know that Ministers respect and appreciate the work that it is doing. I look forward to hearing assurances from the Minister that the Restorative Justice Council will have the resources, status and support necessary
	to make sure that at long last restorative justice can be brought from the margins of our criminal justice system firmly into the mainstream.
	The other issue that I wanted to touch on in my brief remarks relates to part 1, the creation of the National Crime Agency. I am not against the creation of the National Crime Agency. I want to see a powerful agency co-ordinating and leading the fight against organised crime, but having read the Bill, I do not see the great advantage—the great move on—that the legislation is going to bring about, over and above what we have already. Of course we want an agency that can defeat organised criminal gangs and take their criminally gained assets away from them, but we already have that with the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The Home Secretary was completely wrong to dismiss the efforts of previous Governments, as if they had never made any attempt to counter organised crime. That is nonsense, and if the right hon. Lady is honest with herself, she knows that.
	When the Serious Organised Crime Agency was launched in 2006, it had two key issues to address in respect of its organisation. One was to bring the staff together from four different organisations and later from the Assets Recovery Agency. The second was to build operational relationships with the police. Anybody who has followed this over the years knows that it has not been plain sailing all the way, but a huge amount of progress has been made. There should be much greater ministerial acknowledgement of that and the good work that the Serious Organised Crime Agency has done—a base from which the National Crime Agency can begin to build in the future.
	There are three specific issues that I want to touch on. The first is about the so-called super-affirmative order. I firmly support its removal from the Bill, which happened in the other place. There is a judgment and a decision to be made about who should be in the lead on counter-terrorism. It rests with the Metropolitan police, and if there is to be a change, the Home Secretary should come to the House and argue for and justify that change. I find it ironic and incomprehensible that the Home Secretary, who thinks that enhanced terrorism prevention and investigation measures and any decision about extending beyond 14 days the period of pre-charge detention should be allowed only through primary legislation, was proposing to give herself through secondary legislation such a key strategic decision. I encourage her to leave the Bill as it is and not to be tempted to seek secondary authorisation through the Bill.
	Clause 4 sets out the operational relationships between the National Crime Agency and other organisations. This should be extended to key strategic relationships, not least with police and crime commissioners now that they are established in England and Wales.
	My final point is about the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which I was proud to launch in 2006—a unique partnership between children’s organisations, law enforcement and those who operate in the internet industry. When the consultation began, which the Home Secretary started, many feared that the National Crime Agency would mean a downgrading of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. We have had firm assurances and the explanatory note, and the Home Secretary herself has spoken about the
	four commands, one of which is the child exploitation and online protection command. I have yet to be convinced of why that requirement should not be in the Bill. If there is to be a change, it should not be left to a Minister or to the director general of the National Crime Agency. If there is to be any change to CEOP, it is this House that should have the final word.

Edward Garnier: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). He made a characteristically thoughtful speech and we have much to learn from it. I agree with a great deal of what he said, particularly in relation to restorative justice. Like him, I have been to a great many prisons in England and Wales. I have been to about 65 of the 142 that we have in this country and in Wales. Where there was restorative justice, there was a great deal of satisfaction for the victims of those crimes, as well as better behaviour from the criminals. It is important that we get the right people involved in restorative justice, but I commend it as a principle.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Home Office’s proclivity for producing Christmas tree Bills. I would rather flippantly say that the Home Office has produced more Christmas trees than Norway over the past 30 years or so, and the Bill is another fine example. I do not want to denigrate this particular Christmas tree, even though we are well beyond 6 January, because one aspect of it is particularly to be commended. That is the bit that I invented. I refer to clause 32. It is the shortest clause in the Bill and it reads:
	“Schedule 16 makes provision about deferred prosecution agreements.”
	The right hon. Gentleman, when dealing with restorative justice, referred obliquely to the second shortest clause in the Bill, clause 31, but that is 300% longer than the clause that I am talking about.
	Neither the Home Secretary nor the shadow Home Secretary thought it appropriate to talk about deferred prosecution agreements, and why should they? They have plenty of other things to talk about in detail—[Interruption.] I am sure the Home Secretary would like me to correct what I said. Yes, she did mention the subject in passing. I shall mention it in the few minutes left to me, but in rather more detail than she had time to do. Before doing so, I declare my interest as a practising member of the Bar.
	Corporate economic crime damages the British economy in monetary and reputational terms, and we are not dealing with it effectively. That is not to say that everything in the past has been hopeless or a waste of resources, but it is time for us to do things better.
	Since our Government came into office in May 2010, we have made structural changes to improve our strategic capability. We have a new director of the Serious Fraud Office in David Green, a relatively new chief constable of the City of London police, Adrian Leppard, and there is a new focus on economic crime in the Crown Prosecution Service and the Financial Services Authority, which is soon to change its name. During my two or so years in government, it seemed to me that we needed to do something more and that we should think seriously about introducing deferred prosecution agreements, which are an American procedure.
	DPAs will be not a substitute for either investigations or prosecutions of companies, but an additional and much-needed weapon in the prosecution’s armoury that provides the flexibility to secure appropriate penalties and better outcomes for victims. They are modelled on a long-established system in the United States, but they will be adapted to suit our criminal justice system with far more judicial oversight. In the United States federal courts, DPAs are concluded and promulgated with little, if any, judicial oversight, but when I spoke to judges in America last spring, it seemed to me that those judges were beginning to chafe at the inadequate role that they play in this aspect of the American criminal justice system. The first thing that I learned when I was in America was that we need to engage our judges in this new means of dealing with economic crime.
	We are not talking about non-prosecution agreements or other forms of non-criminal—and therefore civil—action to deal with economic crime; we are simply talking about deferment. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East talked about the deferment of penalties; this is about the deferment of prosecutions of corporate entities, companies, partnerships and unincorporated associations.
	Law enforcement agencies say that they do not have the tools that they need to tackle increasingly complex economic crimes. Serious Fraud Office investigations can last up to three and half years, with a cost to the agency of approaching £1.5 million, but they do not guarantee success and they leave victims waiting far too long for reparation. A suspect company is disadvantaged by a lengthy and expensive investigation that takes the focus of its management, which is often new, away from the company’s core functions and frequently leads nowhere, save to collateral damage to innocent third parties. On this point, I often cite the example of Arthur Andersen, which became involved in the Enron scandal in the early part of this century. The company collapsed as a consequence of its prosecution by the United States Department of Justice. Some 100,000 people lost their jobs, and pensioners and suppliers to the business were affected. It did not really help that the Supreme Court quashed the convictions some time later because the company had gone and irreparable collateral damage had already been caused to innocent people.
	DPAs will allow prosecutors to tackle economic crime—the crimes that will be susceptible to DPAs are set out in paragraphs 15 to 27 of schedule 16, but essentially they are fraud, bribery, money laundering, market fixing and so forth—more effectively and efficiently, but without losing sight of the aims and needs of justice. In appropriate cases, companies will be prosecuted regardless of whether the facts come to light following a police investigation, through self-reporting or via a whistleblower.
	A prosecution against a company will be initiated, but continued to trial only if tough requirements, such as the payment of financial penalties and compensation for victims, the recovery of ill-gotten gains and compliance with measures to prevent future offending, policed by independent monitors, are not adhered to within a given period of deferral or suspension. The agreement, and then its precise terms, will have to be formally approved by a senior judge before being announced in open court, which is different from what happens in the United States. The process in this country will very much form part of the criminal justice system and will not permit private deals made behind closed doors.
	Prosecutors will come to know of a company’s conduct through investigation by the authorities, via a whistleblower from within the company, or following self-reporting by the company’s board. Discussions will then follow between the prosecutors and the lawyers for the company. Those will initially be confidential. They might take days or even weeks, but they will continue until the picture is clear. The prosecutors will then consider the facts. On the basis of the information in front of them, they will decide to do nothing; to hand the case over to a foreign jurisdiction, if appropriate; to prosecute, if that is in the interests of justice; or to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement.
	Unlike the position in the United States, it will not be open to the prosecution and the company simply to agree between themselves the penalty, the compensation, the monitoring regime and the length of the deferment. The draft agreement must be put to a senior judge in chambers at a private hearing to which the press and the public are not admitted. The judge will need to be persuaded that it is in the interests of justice for there to be a DPA, and that its terms are fair, reasonable and proportionate.
	Although the judge will not be able to order the prosecution to prosecute to trial, he can, in an appropriate case, refuse to sanction a DPA or its terms. The parties would then need to renegotiate the terms in the light of the judge’s criticism, or the prosecution must consider whether it ought to prosecute in the normal way. In reality, it is unlikely that the parties will go before a judge in a case when only a full prosecution is merited, or with terms that suggest either oppressive or feeble conduct by the prosecution, but the judge must approve the DPA before the case goes any further. If the agreement is approved, the judge moves into open court, the company is publicly identified and the terms of the DPA are promulgated to the world at large. Those terms will be reportable by the press. They will appear on the SFO or CPS websites, and they will be known to the world’s stock exchanges.
	If a company fails to comply with a DPA after it has been announced, depending on the nature of the breach, the prosecution may either take the matter back to court, and apply to terminate the agreement and bring a prosecution, or it may apply to vary the terms, such as by increasing the extent of monitoring or the length of the deferment period. If the company complies and shows that it can be trusted to conduct its affairs within the law before the end of the deferment period, the parties may apply to vary the terms, such as by bringing the DPA to an early conclusion or removing the monitor.
	DPAs will achieve justice through appropriate penalties and the recovery of the proceeds of crime. When sanctioned by a judge, they will provide benefits for victims without the unpredictability, expense, complexity or time associated with a lengthy criminal court process and trial. A DPA will bring certainty and a speedy resolution. It will enable a company, especially if it is being run by a new board, to clear the decks and make a clean start. DPAs will enable commercial organisations to be held to account, but without the collateral damage that I identified earlier.
	Most importantly, given that DPAs will be concluded in open court, the public will know about the wrongdoing admitted by the commercial organisation and its consequences. There will be no question of companies
	burying their wrongdoing in their annual accounts. Experience from the United States shows that even well-known British companies enter into DPAs with a realisation that they are different from plea bargains or civil recovery orders.
	The Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office will issue a code of practice for prosecutors, which will be publicly available, to guide the decision-making process behind DPAs It is also proposed that the Sentencing Council, the statutory body made up of judges, practitioners and academics that publishes sentencing guidelines, will produce guidelines for economic crimes in the near future so that prosecutors, judges and lawyers acting for errant companies will be able to enter into and conclude DPAs with clarity and certainty about the relevant penalties.
	DPAs will not be a “get out of jail free” card. The courts cannot send a company to prison but, under a DPA, it would have to admit its wrongdoing and agree to stringent and wide-ranging terms that are tailored to the facts of the case. The agreements are a means of bringing errant companies publicly to justice swiftly, effectively and economically, and it is time that we brought them into our criminal justice system.
	In conclusion, I thank all those in the Attorney-General’s Office who worked with me on this proposal, especially my former private secretary, John Peck, as well as all those in the Ministry of Justice who helped me to bring it forward. I also thank the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary for getting the provisions into the Bill.

Jack Straw: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) and to commend the measure that now appears in the Bill.
	Ever since the principles of British policing began to be established two centuries ago, there has been a natural and inherent tension between the demand of the British public that policing should be local and the reality that many of the threats that individuals face arise nationally and internationally. The history of British policing in part reflects an effort to try to square the circle of the demand for local control and the reality of national and international threats. When there were 125 police forces in England and Wales alone, the circle was squared by the Metropolitan police having a dual function not only as the force for Greater London, extending far beyond Greater London’s boundaries, taking in a third of Surrey, big chunks of Essex and Hertfordshire, but as a national force as well. For the 30 years following the seminal Police Act 1964, there was a further squaring of the circle by successive Governments, effectively detaching the police from local influence by ensuring that police authorities had very little in the way of democratic representation and the Home Office reigned supreme.
	Over the past 20 years that has changed. A succession of measures, in which I was involved partly, has led to increasing local involvement in policing—first when I started the abolition of the role of the Home Secretary as the police authority for London; then with the gradual strengthening of the powers of the Mayor for London as the police authority; and much more recently with
	the establishment of police and crime commissioners. Taken together, those things mean that the accountability of those for our territorial police forces will increasingly be based on local considerations. That being so, there is a greater danger than ever before that national and international concerns could be marginalised. It is for that reason that I welcome the establishment of the National Crime Agency—the result of gradual development that began in 1992 and of many changes under Labour’s Administration. For those who have a weak stomach, as it were, I should say that it is inevitable that the Bill should give powers of tasking to the new director general of the National Crime Agency by which he or she can issue orders, effectively, to local police forces. Without that ultimate power, there will be an imbalance in the priorities that territorial forces can set.
	I also happen to believe that there is a very strong case indeed for handing over counter-terrorist policing to the National Crime Agency, as the London police focus becomes more and more local. If that is to happen, however, it is essential that it is by way of primary legislation, not by way of super-affirmative orders. I care about the Minister’s reputation, so I tell him to stay away from super-affirmative orders. They can lead only to a vale of tears. Some Labour Members have gone down that vale and have been only too delighted to have been hooked out and extracted by right hon. and hon. Friends.

Bob Stewart: I have been listening very carefully to what has been said. How would the right hon. Gentleman see the police and crime commissioners fitting in if the National Crime Agency were in charge of local police forces?

Jack Straw: My point is this: the establishment of the police and crime commissioners is a matter of party controversy, and we will see whether they are embedded or whether there is some change. In any event there has been an increasing focus on giving local people greater say over local policing, and I strongly support that, but it means that national and international priorities—the threats that lead to quite a lot of local crime—could be marginalised. That is why there is a powerful case for a National Crime Agency and the kind of powers of direction that are inherent there. As I say, we have to go a stage further and accept that there will be two levels of policing—a national police service and the local police services—and ultimately the national police service, the National Crime Agency, will have the power to direct the local police services to ensure that national priorities are met.
	On the reform of the courts, I welcome the unification of the county courts, which makes complete sense. I particularly warmly welcome the establishment of a single family court. That arises from the review of family justice under David Norgrove, which I established with support from the then Opposition. I am really pleased that, thanks not least to Mr Norgrove’s great acuity and sensitivity about the way in which the system needs to reformed and further changed, it looks as though the review will have important and beneficial consequences.
	I changed the law on self-defence back in 2008. I understand why the Justice Secretary was faced with a blank in his proposed speech to party conference and
	thought he needed to say something on this issue. I doubt very much whether it will make any difference at all, because the practice and the law have already changed satisfactorily, but I certainly will not oppose the measure and I do not think my right hon. Friends will either.
	The next issue is the right of appeal on applications for visitor visas. I ask the Minister and his colleagues to look again at the arguments that have been advanced to them by Home Office officials. No one—I say this without any levity at all—has greater affection for Home Office officials than do I. I went to great lengths in my memoirs—available in all good bookshops—to defend and to celebrate officialdom, not least in the Home Office. I never sought to blame officials when it is Ministers who set policy and implement it. However, the truth is—I may give away a secret, but too bad—that it is inconvenient for there to be a right of appeal in visitor cases. There was a lot of resistance to it when I introduced the right of appeal in 1998, and I can disclose that throughout the rest of my ministerial career, about once every two years there was a proposal from other Ministers, once I had left the Home Office, to abolish the right of visitor appeal. I blocked it, whatever position I was in. That is why it survived.

Keith Vaz: Another secret missing from my right hon. Friend’s memoirs is the fact that when I was entry clearance Minister he was one of my biggest customers. The important point about that is that the element of discretion—the need to look again at the decision—is absolutely vital, whether it is a Minister saying that they will overturn the decision or whether it goes to appeal. With the reluctance of immigration Ministers to exercise discretion, it is vital that people get the chance to look again.

Jack Straw: My book is being reprinted, I am pleased to say, but when there is a revised edition I will add that. The truth is that—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. As successful as the right hon. Gentleman’s book is, I am sure that we do not need to get bogged down in his book sales. We look forward to the next volume.

Jack Straw: The truth is that my right hon. Friend had to make those ministerial decisions because visitor appeals had not been introduced at that stage. Ministers will end up with a lot more demands on their plate, among other things, if they take the route of abolishing visitor appeals.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this provision is more important than it was when he introduced it, because a number of our constituents will not be able to satisfy the current price of bringing a husband, for example, into the country, and it is therefore likely that there will be many fathers who can never even see their children in this country?

Jack Straw: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says.
	Like the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have looked at the analysis put forward by the Home Office, and I am afraid that I am sceptical about the evidence, which collides with my experience and, I believe, that of
	my right hon. and hon. Friends and Government Members who have large immigration case loads. It is rare, in my experience, for constituents and their relatives abroad not to have produced the evidence first time round. Much more frequently, they produce the evidence and it is then overlooked. Time and again, my office and I face the situation where the evidence has been submitted and it has been overlooked by the entry clearance officer or has got lost. It may appear to the tribunal to be new evidence, because for sure it is new evidence to the entry clearance officer, but it is not correct to draw the conclusion that that evidence has never gone before immigration officers. Even if that is the case, the fact that a third of appeals are upheld shows that there is important merit in having such a right of appeal. To argue—I hope that the Minister does not do this—that it would be just as satisfactory to re-submit an application is, frankly, disingenuous in the extreme. I have seen constituents re-submit applications in respect of non-family cases, where there is no right of appeal, and all that happens is that the application is turned down again and they have wasted their money.
	My final point relates to judicial appointments. I strongly support the proposed changes in respect of diversity. The apparently prosaic change to allow for the number of judges to be counted by full-time equivalents and not by full-time numbers will make a very important contribution to the employment of the part-time judges, typically female, at every level. Also very important are the tipping-point provisions to allow for the Judicial Appointments Commission to take into account somebody’s gender or colour if two candidates are of equal merit.

Edward Garnier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: I am afraid that I am running out of time.
	I depart from the Government on their proposals for very senior appointments—to the Supreme Court, for the Lord Chief Justice and for the heads of division. Initially the Bill included a proposal by the former Lord Chancellor by which the Lord Chancellor would sit on the appointments panel for those very senior appointments. That has been withdrawn from the Bill in place of consultation. The current arrangements, which include consultation, do not work. It is entirely legitimate for the Lord Chancellor to have a role—not the decisive role, but a role—in these very senior appointments, because what the Supreme Court is doing has very clear political consequences and what the Lord Chief Justice and heads of division are doing has very clear Executive and administrative consequences. The current Lord Chancellor may not wish to sit on the appointments panel—that is his choice—but it is important for the benefit of future holders of that office that the power should be available, and I ask the Minister to look at that again.

Alan Beith: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), a former Home Secretary who always brings a refreshing frankness to the proceedings. I do not agree with him on his last point. I think that the Government were right to move away from the idea of
	the Lord Chancellor sitting on the panel that makes the crucial appointments to the top of the judiciary. I do not think we would ever have been able to persuade anybody that that did not represent an excessive direct involvement of a politician in the process of choosing judges, notwithstanding the fact that the Lord Chancellor is involved at the end of the process.
	The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) described the Bill as a typical Home Office—or, in this case, Home Office and Ministry of Justice—Christmas tree, but it does not contain quite as many unwanted gifts as previous such Christmas trees. Indeed, it contains many welcome things, and I want to concentrate on those that relate to the work of the Justice Committee.
	I should say in passing that I very much welcome the Government’s acceptance of clause 38, which relates to the Public Order Act 1986. I noted Labour Front Benchers’ dithering on this matter, if it is indeed dithering; perhaps they will retain their past position of wanting to keep the law as it is—I do not know. From a free speech and civil liberties point of view, bearing in mind the clear statement by the Director of Public Prosecutions about what can be done without having the word “insulting” in the law, the Government have sensibly accepted an overwhelming decision in the other place.

Edward Leigh: Of course, it was in the Lib Dem manifesto, and when we can agree on things, we should agree—that is what marriage is about.

Alan Beith: It is what coalition is about.
	I welcome the drug-driving provisions, which I am very glad to see in the Bill, but I will turn first to family justice issues and the single family court, which I strongly welcome. There is still a problem about openness in the family courts, and the lack of it helps to feed very strong views among fathers about how private law cases are decided and among families about how public law cases are decided. That creates, or strengthens, a sense that wrongful decisions may be taken, and people do not understand the reasons for decisions. We have had some advances through anonymised judgments being brought forward, but it remains a problem.
	In 2005 and 2006, my predecessor Committee argued for openness provisions of the kind that were eventually legislated for, but when they were on the statute book and we took further evidence for our 2011 report, we did not find a single witness who was happy with them. In the face of that, we were right to say that the Government cannot proceed on this basis, and they are right not to do so. However, we cannot simply abandon the issue. We have to look at more ways of spreading understanding and recognition of what goes on in the family courts and having them exposed to the pressure that public justice—open justice—applies everywhere else. There are compelling reasons why that cannot be done in the same way in the family courts, but we have to take account of the fact that the absence of transparency presents a problem.
	On the delegation of functions to legal advisers, the Committee felt strongly that there must be clear supervision by a district judge of any judicial function that is being carried out by a legal adviser.
	Fine collection is one area where the Committee said that improvement was still needed. We recognise that some improvement has taken place, but there certainly needs to be more. We welcome the chasing of old debts and recognise that there is potential benefit from the private sector being drawn into this activity. However, there is not merely a loss of public revenue when fine collection is not achieved; there is a serious undermining of the justice system when people see that fines have not been paid and that those involved have got away with it.
	The self-defence provisions are probably not legally necessary, but they may have some beneficial impact as regards how the police view cases of this kind. Someone who has been attacked in a terrifying way—whose house has been frighteningly invaded—deserves to be treated as a victim of a crime and have the respect accorded to such a victim even while there is some consideration as to whether there was any grossly disproportionate response on their part. The underlying purpose of the change in the law must be to get that recognition. I do not think that it will actually change the way in which any cases are decided; if I thought that it would, I would worry that it had gone too far.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) referred to deferred prosecution agreements, on which he has done a great deal of work. My Committee took evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions on such agreements. He saw them as an additional tool for prosecutors, but not in any way a replacement for bringing cases to court in many circumstances. However, there are clearly cases in which it would be to everyone’s benefit to take action that did not involve a long drawn-out court case, but that none the less provided restitution for the victims of fraud and perhaps enabled the continuance of a business under new management. The alternative, as my right hon. and learned Friend vividly described in referring to the Arthur Andersen case, can involve a massive loss of jobs and many other adverse consequences that are in no one’s interest.
	I want to talk about the provision for non-custodial sentences, and the requirement for a clear element of punishment in such sentences. I do not disagree with that principle, but we should remember that many offenders regard community sentences as more arduous than prison sentences. On more than one occasion, ex-offenders appearing before the Justice Committee have told us that they have committed further offences because they were sick of the requirements of their community sentence and thought that a short spell in prison would be much easier. That might seem counter-intuitive—it might not be what most of us would imagine—but for plenty of criminals, a long and arduous community sentence that places requirements on them, whether it appears punitive or not, is more exacting. They would rather be sitting in prison getting three meals a day and not having a great deal to do.
	This provision must not result in our administering a measure that is not the most effective way of changing someone’s life and preventing them from reoffending. We are trying to ensure that there are no more victims of a particular person’s crimes, and to turn around the way in which they behave. We should measure what we are doing in accordance with that aim. More often than not, the challenging requirements that the provision will place on the person to face up to the consequences of
	what they have done—through restorative justice, for example—to face up to a victim when that is possible, and to make effective reparation to society will be more punitive in practice than a prison sentence. We need to have an understanding of that process.
	That leads me to the subject of restorative justice, which has great potential; I am glad that there is provision for it in the Bill. We all recognise that it cannot be forced upon victims, but the level of satisfaction among victims that we have seen in evidence to the Committee has been very encouraging indeed. There is also a growing public view that it makes sense for criminals to be faced with the consequences of their crimes and with the harm that they have done to others, and required to change their lives as a result.
	The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East referred to a provision that was added to the Bill in the Lords, relating to non-custodial sentences for female offenders. The Justice Committee is embarking on an inquiry into women offenders, and we have already expressed the view on more than one occasion that more needs to be done to ensure that courts have at their disposal appropriate and effective means of dealing with women offenders. Indeed, our report on the probation service, which we produced in July 2011, stated:
	“The probation service’s approach—where resources tend to be directed towards dealing with offenders who present the highest degree of risk—can fail adequately to support women offenders. The approach recommended by Baroness Corston for the provision of holistic services that address all women’s needs is still a long way from being realised.”
	The Government now need to include in the Bill a reminder that more needs to be done in that respect.
	This Home Office and Justice Bill provides an us with an opportunity to welcome an unusually large number of provisions. There are others that will be pored over in detail in Committee. The effective implementation of the provisions on fines and on non-custodial facilities for women offenders, for example, will add to our ability to do what we are supposed to be doing, which is using the criminal justice system to stop people becoming the victims of crime in the first place.

Elfyn Llwyd: As with most Bills, there are aspects of this one that are to be commended, and others that we can argue about. The Bill contains several measures for which the justification is utterly unclear. In introducing the changes to community orders and to the law of self-defence, the Government seem to be ignoring the importance of judicial discretion, and the changes to immigration law seem very harsh. In my contribution today, I will set out the reasons for my opposition to some provisions in the Bill. I would also like to say, however, that the proposals on single family courts, on drug-driving and on judicial appointments are all excellent. The devil will be in the detail, of course, but so far so good in those areas.
	Clause 28 provides for the relaxation of the ban on televising court proceedings by granting the Secretary of State the power to revoke the current rules by order, with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. Under the current law, section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 bans the taking of photographs, portraits and recordings of judges, jurors and witnesses in all civil and criminal proceedings. By removing that ban, I hope
	that clause 28 will broaden public engagement with the administration of justice, as well as increasing understanding of the judicial process.
	Caution must be exercised, however, to ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny is given to the detail of these plans. It is unclear to me why clause 39 should provide for any secondary legislation setting out the specific circumstances in which the Government intended to allow filming to be subject to the negative resolution procedure, hence greatly limiting the scope for debate on the topic in this place. Many groups, including Liberty, have expressed concern about the possible repercussions that could emanate from allowing for the filming of civil and criminal proceedings in their entirety. That could well lead to additional anxiety for witnesses—and in certain circumstances to some witnesses being less inclined to appear in court—as well as to the alteration of testimony.
	The impetus behind the provision is, of course, welcome, but for the reasons that I have set out, the details of the Government’s plans in this area should be set out in primary legislation. If, however, the televising were limited to the judgment, as is the case in Scottish courts, that would add useful transparency and provide assistance to law commentators, to students and to practitioners.
	By contrast, the proposed changes to the law on self-defence in clause 30 seem to have no justification. I do not like falling out with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—the esteemed Chair of the Justice Committee, of which I am a member—but I take a different view from him on this. He will know that, under the common law, defendants are able to use reasonable force against an intruder. That defence was put on to the statute book by section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
	The law states that a defendant may use against an intruder an amount of force that he or she believes to be reasonable and proportionate at the time, even if a court subsequently considers that that belief was misplaced. The law as it stands evidently provides sufficient defence for homeowners. Indeed, data from the Crown Prosecution Service show that, between 1990 and 2005, the service prosecuted only 11 cases in which a defendant had been charged under the current law. However, if clause 30 is allowed to go through unamended, it will allow for a defendant to use an amount of force that he or she acknowledges to be disproportionate at the time, provided that the force used is not “grossly disproportionate”.
	I have prosecuted and defended many cases involving self-defence, as have other Members, and the existing law has been regarded as perfectly adequate hitherto. If ever I saw a change to the law that would open the door to vigilantism, this is it. In my surgery on Friday last, a farmer came to see me. He was a responsible, middle-aged man, and he told me that three individuals had tried to break into one of his barns to steal a quad bike. There is too much of that kind of thing going on in rural Wales at the moment—but I digress.
	The farmer said, “I have a shotgun. What would have happened if I’d aimed and shot above their heads?” I had to put him right on that and he said, “But isn’t there a change in the law?” That is where we are: people think that we are upping the ante. If the purport of the clause is to raise the bar for the police and the CPS in the first place—Justice Ministers have told me that that is the case—I suppose that there is some logic to it, but
	it could well be dangerous, as my example shows. Ministers do not think that it will change anything in the court and hope that it will lead to the bar being raised in the first place, but as I have said, there is a grave danger that people will take the law into their own hands and believe that it is open season on individuals who roam on their property. The Law Society says that it will end up with greater litigation and that the present law is workable and acceptable.
	Clause 31 would put into effect the provisions of schedule 15, which provide for a number of changes to courts’ means of dealing non-custodially with offenders. Part 2 of the schedule would allow courts to defer sentencing so that the offender and victim can partake in restorative justice. This is most welcome. All we need to do, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East has said, is look at the Northern Ireland model and make sure that the resources are there. It is an excellent step forward and I am pleased with it.
	Recent polling conducted by Make Justice Work suggests that 70% of victims believe that they should have the opportunity to communicate with the offender so as to show them the impact of their actions. I think that that is probably right. However, the findings of a poll conducted by the British Crime Survey showed that 69% of victims who were offered a meeting with their perpetrator said no to the opportunity. The onus is now on us as individual politicians and the Ministry of Justice to increase public confidence in any proposed scheme.
	The changes introduced in part 7 of schedule 15 are likewise welcomed. If passed, part 7 would ensure that all contracts made between the Secretary of State and probation trusts would require the trusts to make specific provision for female offenders, thus taking into account the particular needs of this demographic group. I pay due regard and tribute to Baroness Corston for the work she has done. The provisions in part 7 were included as a result of a successful non-Government amendment on Third Reading in the other place. I hope that the Government will accept these vital measures in this place.
	Other changes proposed by schedule 15 are less welcome. Part 1 would amend section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to guarantee that courts imposing community orders must include a mandatory punitive element. This could mean electronic tagging, exclusion orders and so on. I am at a loss to see why the Government are going further down the road of electronic tagging. Actually, I find it baffling, because the Government’s own impact assessment, published in March 2012, acknowledged that the measures could lead to an increase in reoffending as a result of rehabilitative requirements being sacrificed to make way for punitive requirements.
	Part 4 of schedule 15 relates to electronic monitoring, on which the Government’s own impact assessment, dated 4 January 2012, suggests that
	“the UK evidence points towards a more neutral impact on re-offending”.
	It does not work. The current spending on electronic monitoring is £120 million and, as a result of this Bill, it will rise to £360 million for something that does not work—and this from a Government who seek “more for less”. Conversely, the impact assessment observes:
	“Research on supervision suggests that the supervisory relationship between the offender and the case manager plays an important role in securing compliance and promoting desistance.”
	Why, therefore, are the Government now seeking to privatise that so that trained professionals will not deal face to face with offenders, which is the proper way of doing it? The Government have also proposed major changes to the probation service and I am concerned about the effects they will have.
	Clause 20 would revoke a restriction listed in the Senior Courts Act 1981, thus providing for the transfer of immigration judicial review applications from the High Court to the upper tribunal.

Pete Wishart: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Scottish Parliament passed a legislative consent motion allowing this House to legislate on its behalf, but clauses 20 and 21 were introduced at a later stage without any consultation with Scottish Ministers. This has caused great upset in the legal fraternity in Scotland, particularly those who are acting and operating in our judicial system and with particular regard to referrals to the Court of Session. Does he agree that the Government should have consulted Scottish Ministers before including clauses 20 and 21 in the Bill?

Elfyn Llwyd: Absolutely. We always thought that the devolved Administrations were part of the respect agenda and that the Government would consult them. I find it astonishing that that has not happened with regard to such an important matter.
	On clause 20, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association and Liberty argue that no case has been made for the change, which will impact on almost all immigration and asylum applications. Crucially, the upper tribunal stands charged with not having demonstrated its ability to deal with the UK Border Agency’s conduct in the same way as the High Court has done. ILPA cites examples of UKBA failing to respond quickly to the upper tribunal’s orders and its failure to adequately plead its case as problems that plague many cases.
	As a result, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has recommended that the Government insert further provisions into the Bill to make sure that immigration and nationality cases in which human rights such as life, liberty and freedom from torture are at stake continue to be decided by the High Court. I hope that the Government will reconsider that point.
	Clause 34 would remove the right of appeal against the refusal of a visa to visit a family member, except on grounds of human rights or race discrimination. I will not retread the ground very well and adequately covered by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and others. I fully agree with them and hope that the Government will reconsider the provision, because it could be harsh in the extreme. I also agree with the Law Society and the JCHR, which argue that the measure cannot be passed in the light of the poor quality of so many decisions made by UKBA, as evidenced by the high number of successful appeals against refusals.
	There it is—as always, there are some very good things, but there are some pretty poor things as well, and one hopes that many of them will be improved and some deleted in Committee.

Shailesh Vara: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), although, as will become apparent, I disagree with some of the points he raised. I also declare an interest as a non-practising solicitor.
	I wish to direct most of my comments to clause 30, which deals with self-defence by householders in their own homes and by business people whose businesses are part of the accommodation in which they also live—principally, shopkeepers.
	As far as I am concerned, this is unfinished business. As the Home Secretary said in her speech, I and a couple of other Government colleagues have in the past tried to change the law to make sure that what is proposed by clause 30 is enacted. I promoted a private Member’s Bill in December 2006, as others had done before me. It had cross-party support, including from the present Attorney-General and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), the former Solicitor-General, as well as from distinguished Members on the Labour Benches, particularly the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and—dare I say it?—a very distinguished person in yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker. I therefore congratulate the Home Secretary on introducing this measure.
	At present, the test for a householder is to use reasonable force in self-defence, which, I contend, is difficult to define and not easy to enforce. A higher test is required that allows the use of force as long as it is not grossly disproportionate. That will benefit not only the general public but the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, because it will provide them with much clearer guidelines within which to operate.
	The example given by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd would not exempt a person from being prosecuted. We are talking about individuals acting in the heat of the moment. The test is reasonableness—not with the benefit of hindsight, but as it appears at the time.

Elfyn Llwyd: The example I gave was of three people trying to break into a barn adjacent to a farmer’s house to steal from him. That is the heat of the moment, surely.

Shailesh Vara: To lie in wait with a shotgun is not to act in the heat of the moment; it is premeditated. That is not what clause 30 allows.
	The only people whom clause 30 will not benefit are the criminals who break the law in the first place.
	In considering the clause, it is important to reflect on some statistics. The crime survey for England and Wales for 2010-11 estimates that there were 745,000 burglaries during that period. In approximately 205,000 of those instances, the victims were at home, were aware that the offence was being committed and saw the offender. In approximately 75,000 cases, force or violence was used against the victim.
	Those who support the present test often say that it is for a court—a judge and jury—to decide on the facts. However, it can take up to a year, or possibly longer, for a case to reach the courts. During that time, the individual has to put up with the stress and anxiety, especially
	those who are subsequently found innocent. It cannot be right that people who are going to be found innocent, along with their families, have to endure that anguish. It is therefore important that the law is clarified for people who act honestly and instinctively in self-defence.
	The public should know that the law is on their side. Sometimes, it is right and proper that we speak up for the victims of crime and the general public who are on the receiving end of the violence, the figures for which I have just given. Let there be no doubt that we are talking about victims of crime—law-abiding householders, shopkeepers and military personnel living in barracks, because the clause covers the military as well.
	It is not surprising that leading and prominent members of the police force support raising the test. The former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Blair, said on his first day in office, when asked about this issue:
	“I thought reasonableness was quite a difficult concept at 4 o’clock in the morning in your kitchen, whereas something as stark as gross disproportionality did seem to me to be clearer.”
	He was right. At 4 o’clock in the morning, a householder who is confronted by an intruder is frightened—indeed, he is likely to be petrified. His response will be instant and he will have no regard to reasonableness or otherwise.
	Lord Blair’s predecessor, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, did not mince his words either, saying that
	“householders should be presumed to have acted legally, even if a burglar dies, unless there is contrary evidence”.
	The present commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, told the BBC that he agreed that homeowners need better protection than is available at present:
	“I think, probably, there’s an argument at the moment for making sure that that bar gets higher, and that the homeowner has better protection, and the burglar is put more on notice that they’re at risk if they choose to burgle someone’s home while they’re in it”.
	It is important to note that the higher bar is reflected in the guidance for police when arresting people. The test for individuals who claim to have been acting in self-defence was updated only two months ago:
	“The changes are driven by the coalition commitment to protect householders and others from unnecessary arrest when they use force in the belief that they are acting in self-defence. The amended Code…sets out that, in order to establish grounds to suspect a person of committing an offence, officers should consider facts and information which tend to indicate the person’s innocence as well as their guilt.”
	The Crown Prosecution Service guidance also uses a higher level:
	“You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self defence.”
	It goes on to say:
	“If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully.”
	Given that the guidance for the people who implement the law—the police and the Crown Prosecution Service—refers to a higher test than that laid down in the present law, it makes sense for us to clarify the law and make it easier to implement, rather than for the implementers to rely on guidance.
	There is considerable public demand for this measure. When I introduced my private Member’s Bill in 2006, one of my local newspapers, the Cambridge Evening News,
	conducted a survey that found that more than 90% of the people who responded were in favour of raising the bar of the test. An ICM poll conducted by
	The Sunday Telegraph
	in December 2009 found that 79% of those who took part favoured changing the test from reasonable force to grossly disproportionate force.
	A change in the law is not only necessary; it will send out a powerful message. It will tell law-abiding citizens that the law is on their side and not on the side of criminals. It will also show that an Englishman’s home is still his castle.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara). He has obviously campaigned hard on that issue and I commend him for his efforts. I am glad that the measure will be contained in this legislation.
	Earlier today, the Home Affairs Committee held a conference to launch our new inquiry into leadership and standards in the police. I am pleased to see three members of the Committee here this evening: my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). We listened carefully to some of the leaders of our police service, including Hugh Orde, Bernard Hogan-Howe and the new chief executive of the college of policing, as well as leaders from abroad, such as the commissioner who heads the Royal Canadian mounted police and the former president of Interpol. It is clear that in order to get effective leadership, there must be effective structures. I am therefore glad that, with the creation of the National Crime Agency, we at last have a body for the head of the NCA, who was appointed 15 months ago.
	At that conference, it was interesting to hear the acceptance from all sides of the police service of the need for the Government, the Opposition and those in the police service to sit together and talk about the future of policing. With the Bill, we have an opportunity to streamline a number of the structures that have operated in policing for a number of years. The Labour Government can be praised for the resources that they gave the police, but we would be the first to admit that we did not really spend the necessary time examining the structures and ensuring they were fit for purpose.
	What the Government have proposed is a revolution in policing—the abolition of SOCA and the National Policing Improvement Agency, the creation of the College of Policing and police and crime commissioners, and the abolition of police authorities. When on taking office the Home Secretary announced the changes, she talked about uncluttering the landscape. We will probably have more organisations rather than fewer at the end of the process, but I would be the first to accept them if they were fit for purpose, acted upon Parliament wanted and did the job effectively.
	My first concern about the new landscape is that it is not complete. We thought that by now we would have a Constable—perhaps “Dedham Vale”—but instead we have the tail-end of a “Guernica”. The good intentions are there, but it is not complete. I thought that after two years, we would have the end of the landscape and
	the jigsaw would have been completed, but it has not. I urge Ministers to come rapidly to a conclusion about how the landscape will look in the end. The Home Affairs Committee, including its members who are in their places, has scrutinised and monitored what the Government have been doing, but we cannot decide on the structures. That has to be up to the Government. All that the House and the Committee can do is scrutinise and monitor what the Government are doing and give our recommendations on whether the system will work.
	We need a conclusion on whether responsibility for counter-terrorism will remain with the Met or form part of the National Crime Agency. Why? Because we were promised a review of that at the end of the Olympics. The Home Secretary specifically said that she would not make a decision until the Olympics were over. I urge the Government to make progress, because it is not in the Met’s interests, and certainly not in the interests of Keith Bristow and his new colleagues at the NCA, that they should delay.
	Like the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), I would probably be minded to move responsibility for counter-terrorism into the NCA. It would fit well there, as the NCA will be a national organisation dealing with national and international issues. However, I know that there is resistance to that from the Met. I have discussed it with a number of officers, who feel strongly that responsibility should stay with the Met, because it has within it the expertise needed to deal with the matter.
	It is also important that we know the name of the new chair of the College of Policing. Perhaps the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will tell us that. It has a chief executive, and we heard from him today. He has ambitious plans for what he hopes will eventually be a royal college of policing. Professionalism is vital to the future of our police service, but it is also important that the Government get on and appoint the chair. I know that someone was recently nominated, but that person has not been appointed, for a variety of reasons. If there is a shortlist of additional candidates, I urge the Minister to interview them, as I think he will be doing this week, and then let the Home Affairs Committee have the name of whoever is going to be in charge of the organisation, which is vital for the future of this country’s police service.
	It is also important that we deal with the issue of appeals. I do not know whether the Minister will remember this, but when he was Minister for Immigration, he promised in a debate in the House a meeting with myself and colleagues who had an interest in immigration. Actually, I think I put it to the Home Secretary that she should meet us, but she passed it on to him. He, of course, has now left the post, and I hope he will pass the message on to the current Minister for Immigration.
	Those of us who deal with a lot of immigration cases want the issue of appeals dealt with. That is not just Opposition Members—I see the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) in his place, and I reckon that he has many immigration cases at his surgery on a Friday evening. The last thing he wants is for us to be in limbo, having to ask people to apply again because there is no right of appeal for family visitors.
	I put to Ministers a simple solution. I know that things have to change. I do not accept that there is abuse in the system, but it is a lengthy system and I know that
	they want to save money. I and others have suggested in the past that we have an administrative review of the decisions made by entry clearance officers. New evidence necessary to ensure that a case can be dealt with satisfactorily could go to somebody in a hub in London—it is quite possible for cases to be reviewed in London. I say to Ministers that the change will affect the settled British community, the diasporas that the Prime Minister and other Ministers feel strongly about bringing on-side. Unless we do something about the problem, British citizens trying to get relatives over for weddings and other family events will suffer.

Julian Huppert: It is always a pleasure to speak to the right hon. Gentleman about these issues. There is a problem when more information is required in a case, and I understand the Government’s advice that people should reapply. Would not an alternative approach be for entry clearance officers to be able to specify what extra information they would like and make a decision once they have received it? I have seen a number of cases in which they asked to see specific documents part-way through the process.

Keith Vaz: I agree, and my biggest regret from when I was the Minister responsible for entry clearance 10 years ago is that I did not introduce that approach. I left it to the system, and I was wrong to do so. If we had a system that allowed new information to be accepted, we would be able to save the taxpayer a huge amount of money and save those who are seeking to bring people into this country a lot of anguish.

Mark Reckless: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the motivation for the change is financial, another option may be to increase the fee payable for appeals? I understand that would put some people off and might significantly reduce the number of appeals, but the possibility of entry clearance officers’ decisions being reviewed by a judge might help to ensure that decisions are made better than if the right of appeal is removed.

Keith Vaz: That is an option. I would not be enthusiastic about putting up fees, but people do not mind paying fees if they get results and cases are dealt with quickly. If that can be guaranteed, it is certainly an option. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention and that of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) have shown us that it is quite possible to put forward alternative measures to abolishing the right of appeal. I hope that the Government will consider them.
	I wish to say a couple of things about the parts of the Bill that I welcome. One is the establishment of the forum bar, which the Home Affairs Committee recommended when we examined extradition. Following the whole Gary McKinnon saga and the marvellous work of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who campaigned so passionately for his constituent, we put forward the idea of the forum bar, and now it will legislated for. We are delighted about that.
	I am less delighted by the Home Secretary’s wish to give all the rest of her extradition powers to High Court judges. If we have Ministers, we should allow them to make decisions. I am not sure why people wait so long for ministerial office, then get there and want to hand
	all their powers over to judges. I actually think it is a good idea that Members of Parliament and others should be able to make representations to Ministers if there are exceptional cases. That will not be the norm—Gary McKinnon and Richard O’Dwyer’s cases were not the norm. They were exceptional cases that got to the Home Secretary’s attention only because of the work of people such as Janis Sharp, Gary McKinnon’s mother; the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate; and Richard O’Dwyer and his mother Julia. They were able to bring those cases to Parliament’s attention, and we should ensure that Ministers keep those powers rather than give them away.
	I have been watching how the hon. Member for Croydon Central has pursued the campaign concerning drug offences when people are driving. Given the circumstances of his constituent, it must be a great relief to him and his faith in parliamentary democracy that a case he has raised so frequently in meetings with Ministers over the past year or so has ended in the fruition of a clause in a Bill that will change the law. What satisfaction it must give him as a constituency MP to know that he, along with other Members, has been a part of changing the law. I welcome what the Government are doing, and they are quite right to ensure that that change takes place.
	I was never a great fan of the Judicial Appointments Commission introduced by the previous Government. Perhaps because both Lord Chancellors under whom I served—the noble Lord Irvine and the noble Lord Falconer—were, in my view, exceptional people, I thought that they could make better decisions about the diversity of the judiciary than a quango. I was right: they would have made better decisions and the judiciary would today have been quite different. I welcome what the Government are doing; it is a message to those who make such decisions that the judiciary needs to look not as Parliament did was when I was first elected but as how it is today—Parliament looks like the country and so must the judiciary. Obviously, people must pass the merit test. Nobody wants jobs given away because someone happens to like the person sitting in front of them, or because they are a particular gender or race. Jobs are given to people who are qualified and able to do them effectively.
	I will end with a comment made earlier today by Lord Wasserman, the Government adviser on some of the policing reforms. As the House knows, the Home Affairs Committee has been trying to get Lord Wasserman to appear before it, and he came before the Committee today as part of our international conference. He spoke most eloquently and I was quite taken by his comments. He suggested that the Government look at how police and crime commissioners have operated, and that the Committee hold an inquiry into that at the end of the year—obviously, the Committee will decide whether it wants to do that. The Minister has escaped; he has got political asylum from immigration and gone to policing. He survived the little problem of a few years ago, when I understand from The Sunday Times he ended up in the Cherwell. I did not see the Attorney-General in the Chamber making up with him; he was here earlier, but he is not present at the moment.
	The Minister has one of the most exciting jobs in government: the chance to finish off the new landscape of policing. I know my right hon. Friend the Member
	for Delyn (Mr Hanson) enjoyed being policing Minister, but the way to really enjoy the job is to ensure the jigsaw is completed and that we get a police service that fits the structure. We have the best police service in the world. Let us ensure that the organisations that are there to serve it really work.

Gavin Barwell: It is always a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, and doubly so since he was so kind about me in his speech. He speaks with great authority on all these issues, and although he tempts me towards the issue of appeals in relation to family immigration, I hope he will understand if on this occasion I rise to speak specifically to clause 37, which deals with drug-driving.
	On 26 June 2010 my constituent, Lillian Groves, was killed outside her house. She was just 14 years old. The driver of the vehicle that knocked her down was driving a car that was not licensed in his name. He had no insurance to drive that vehicle, was driving at 43 miles an hour in a 30-mile-an-hour zone, and a half-smoked joint of cannabis was found on the car’s dashboard. When the police found him he was not at the scene of the accident as he had gone some distance down the road.
	I hope the House will not mind if I pause for a second to reflect on what Lillian might have done in the rest of her life, the people whose lives she would have touched, the children she might have had, and the contribution she might have made to our local town. It is not just the loss of her life, but the impact her death has had on her friends and, most particularly, her family. Lillian was taken to hospital and pronounced dead some hours later. Sadly, the blood of the vehicle’s driver was not tested immediately, and only after Lillian died did the police conduct a test. Cannabis was found in his blood. The family have never been told the level that was found although the Crown Prosecution Service told them that it was not sufficient to warrant a charge of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drugs.
	The driver was sentenced to just eight months in jail. He served just four months and was released. He lives locally to the family, so for the rest of their lives they will be faced with the knowledge that every time they go to the local shops there is a danger that they will bump into this individual who has never spoken to them, apologised or shown any remorse at all for what he has done.
	To my mind, those of my constituents, and I hope all Members of the House, that family did not receive justice in any sense of the word, and I want to pay tribute to Gary and Natasha—Lillian’s parents—and Michaela, her aunt. A number of Members, including the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and the Home Secretary, have been kind to give me credit for the campaign I have run, but I do not feel that I deserve that at all as I am just doing my job. Those who deserve credit in this instance are Lillian’s family. They took a terrible situation that no parent would ever want to endure, and rather than be consumed by anger—as I fear many of us would be—they wanted to turn it into
	something positive and see a change in the way that we as a society deal with this issue so that other families do not have to experience their anguish.
	Lillian’s family found a powerful and useful friend in our local paper, The Croydon Advertiser, and in particular an excellent young reporter called Gareth Davies who worked with them to put together a campaign for what they have called “Lillian’s law”. They came to see me at my surgery to ask for my support, and the package they were looking for contained four items. First, they wanted a change in the law itself. As the Home Secretary mentioned in her speech, although it is currently an offence under section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to drive while impaired by drugs, it is extremely difficult to secure convictions under that legislation because it is difficult for the prosecution to prove impairment. There is no equivalent to the law on drink-driving whereby if someone has more than a certain level of a drug in their blood, that is held to be evidence of impairment. The law is not weighted in the same way. The first thing, therefore, was to change the law, which is what clause 37 does.
	I hope the House will not mind if I mention a couple of other things that the family are also looking to see happen. The second point is to have a device, equivalent to a breathalyser, initially for use in police stations but in the longer term for use at the roadside. At the moment, the police conduct a field impairment test, the suspect can be taken to the police station and a doctor must be called to conduct a blood test. That is expensive and time consuming and there is therefore a disincentive to conduct such tests. It is important to get devices in place that allow tests to be carried out that are equivalent to those for drink-driving. I am pleased that the Government have recently given type approval for devices for use at police stations, and I understand—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that the intention is to approve a device for use at the roadside by 2014.
	The third issue was to look at sentencing and to ensure appropriate punishment for those convicted of such offences. The Bill would provide a level of sentence equivalent to that for drink-driving. The fourth thing, which can only happen once the three other pieces of the jigsaw are in place, is to look at an enforcement campaign similar to that of the 1980s on drink-driving. There was a time when lots of people drove under the influence of drink—to a degree, it was the cultural norm. It took that enforcement campaign in the 1980s to change attitudes, and I think we now need a similar campaign about driving under the influence of some drugs that, sadly, are all too prevalent in society today.
	When the family came to see me at my surgery, I was faced with the challenge of what to do and how to help them. As usual, the House of Commons Library was a great place to start, and I began researching the law and previous efforts to change it—and to be fair to the last Government, they looked at this issue. It was a difficult and complicated matter, however, as several different Departments were involved: the Home Office, in relation to the police’s responsibilities; the Ministry of Justice, in relation to the criminal offence; and the Department for Transport.
	I decided to raise the profile of the issue and ask about it in Prime Minister’s questions. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Prime Minister, because he agreed to meet the family and invited them to 10 Downing
	street to see him. I guess they found in him one of the few Members of the House who sadly could understand exactly what they had been through in losing a child. The staff at No. 10 have worked closely with all three Departments to get the change in the law before us today through as rapidly as possible.
	I want to ask a couple of questions about the detail. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) alluded to this matter in a question that he asked the Home Secretary earlier about what the limits for specified drugs might be. Proposed new section 5A(9) in clause 37(1) provides that specified limits could be zero. Paragraph 562 of the explanatory notes, which are always a great source of guidance, contains the wonderful sentence:
	“New section 5A(9) provides that specified limits could be zero, though this does not mean that limits would in fact be set at zero.”
	One can make of that what one will.
	Lillian’s family feel strongly that the level for illegal drugs should be set at zero. As a matter of principle, they feel that people should not be taking these substances and therefore should not be driving under their influence. There is the strong counter-argument, however, that we should be led by science, as the hon. Member for Cambridge tried to point out, that we should try to discover what level of an active substance in the blood stream leads to the same level of impairment as the blood alcohol limit and that we should set the limits that way. Clearly, as the Bill tries to do, we also have to consider prescribed medications that have the same active substances as some illegal drugs.

David Burrowes: I commend my hon. Friend for his leadership in driving through this important change. I want to ask about the sentencing impact. Assuming its safe passage, this proposal will have as its outcome a sentencing maximum of 12 months. If someone is impaired by being over the limit, whether in relation to drugs or alcohol, plainly that is inherently careless, but only if they were charged with causing death by careless driving while under the influence would their case get to the High Court for a much heavier sentence, which is what many of these people deserve.

Gavin Barwell: As usual, my hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will explore those issues once I have dealt with the limits.
	A decision needs to be made about whether the levels should be based as far as possible on the scientific evidence of similar levels of impairment to that caused by alcohol or whether there is a case, as the family believe, for zero limits for some of the most serious substances. As I understand it, the Government have set up the Wolff panel to consider the detail. They themselves are finding this a highly complex and difficult area and are taking a bit more time than originally envisaged to do this work, but I would be grateful for any guidance that the Minister could give in his winding-up speech about the timing of the panel’s report.

Julian Huppert: It is a fascinating balance. I have seen comments from the Wolff panel suggesting that alcohol is far and away the most dangerous substance that people can take, so although I support the aim in the Bill of reducing impairment, perhaps more work still needs to be done on drink-driving as well.

Gavin Barwell: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point.
	I am conscious of the time and of the fact that other Members wish to speak, so I will end by addressing the point about sentencing raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). The explanatory notes make an interesting point. They state that the sentencing has been set at the same level as for driving under the influence of alcohol. Paragraph 560 of the notes states that these are
	“the penalties set out in Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 as increased, for England and Wales, by certain provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which are not yet in force”.
	Will Ministers give some guidance on what the provisions of this Act passed nine years ago are and why neither the previous Government nor the current one have yet brought them into force?
	Paragraph 567 also makes an important point that I think answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. It reads:
	“Paragraph 2 amends section 3A of the 1988 Act so that if the person had a controlled drug in the blood or urine in excess of the specified limit for that drug, the person could be charged with the more heavily penalised offence in that section of causing death by careless driving”.
	I believe that that means—I would be grateful if Ministers could confirm this—that the limits will apply to both offences and that in a case such as Lillian’s, if the driver’s cannabis level is above the limit subsequently set, the more significant charge could be brought against the individual.
	In conclusion, I pay tribute to Lillian’s family for their work in advancing this cause. The House will know that Lillian is far from the only individual whose life has sadly been cut short by a drug-driver. No doubt, sadly, other Members will have examples from their own constituencies, but for me it has been a great privilege to speak up on behalf of this wonderful family, who want to ensure that other people do not go through the agony that they have experienced. I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and all the Ministers responsible for bringing the Bill before the House.

Kate Green: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and I congratulate him on his work in bringing his provision to this point. Before I entered the House, I served as a lay magistrate for 16 years and in cases of people driving under the influence of drugs, was always struck by the complete uncertainty about how we applied the law, compared with the dead certainty in relation to people driving under the influence of alcohol. I therefore welcome the clarity that this provision starts to bring.
	I would like to talk about several aspects of the Bill. They are by no means the only elements that have come up this evening, but I want to focus on the issues relating to diversity and sentencing. I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) in welcoming the amendment inserted in their lordship’s House specifically to introduce a focus on the position of women within the criminal justice system. That provision did not have Government Front-Bench support in the House of Lords, but, given
	that last week in his oral statement about transforming rehabilitation the Justice Secretary specifically said, in response to a question from me, that he accepted that the specific circumstances and needs of women had to be addressed, I hope, now that this provision has been passed in their lordship’s House, that Ministers will see no reason not to adopt it.
	I was pleased to see provisions on judicial diversity and to hear the Home Secretary highlight them in her opening speech. As she said, there has been progress on the diversification of the judiciary, but much more needs to be made. The provisions in schedule 13, on the tie-break and the possibility of full-time equivalent appointments to the senior judiciary, are welcome. In particular, however, I want to comment on the duty now on the Lord Chancellor to encourage diversity in the judiciary contained in paragraph 10. That is certainly a welcome exhortation, but it is important that it not be left at mere words and that substantive progress be made. Willing the end is not the same as willing the means.
	It is clear where some of the barriers and blockages lie. As right hon. and hon. Members have commented, women and ethnic minorities are particularly poorly represented in the judiciary. That is not so much the case in the tribunals and lay judiciary, so it speaks in part to difficulties that the Bar and solicitor professions have in developing a pipeline to find more diverse members of the judiciary. I would be interested to hear what work Ministers envisage doing with the Judicial Appointments Commission and the professions to start to strengthen professional routes for women, minorities and other groups with protected characteristics.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said, it is important to have a judiciary that reflects the make-up of society. It is, without question, an issue of public confidence. It also broadens the perspectives that are brought to bear on judicial decisions, as Lady Hale herself highlighted in her submission to the review of the Judicial Appointments Commission. That is an important and valuable reason why we have a number of judges judging more challenging cases, and is a lesson we ought to reflect in the appointments process more generally.
	I am concerned that when these provisions and other allied amendments were debated in the House of Lords, Lord McNally made great play of the role of the public sector equality duty in underpinning this clause and the other provisions on judicial diversity. When Lord McNally spoke, the public sector equality duty was a settled and fairly clear duty. Since that debate in June 2012, the Government have of course announced a full review of the duty, which leads me to ask how we can be sure that the very best provisions of that duty will be embedded in the judicial appointments process.
	It is worth noting that the Judicial Appointments Commission has welcomed the public sector equality duty as a framework for working on diversifying the judiciary. It has been absolutely explicit in saying that it does not regard it as a tick-box exercise. It is important that we do not lose what has been good in offering a framework for diversification of the judiciary as the review of the duty continues. That is more of a concern now that the requirement to carry out equality impact assessments in relation to policy is being removed.
	I am pleased to see specific provision for restorative justice in the Bill. That represents a good start—a good first step in legislative recognition of the value of restorative justice. There have been a number of comments today on the importance and challenge of persuading victims who may feel torn about whether to participate in such a process. I invite Ministers to look carefully at how the concept of restorative justice can be extended, so that it does not necessarily mean the offender meeting his or her victim. Prison Fellowship, whose work I have had the privilege of seeing in Styal prison, has been able to extend the concept so that victims, not necessarily of the women serving the sentences in the programmes they are running, are nonetheless able to act as proxy victims to enable the concept of restorative justice to be extended more widely. It is a powerful programme that deals with serious offenders. I hope Ministers will see the provisions in the Bill as a first step to learning what works effectively in restorative justice, and to looking for opportunities to extend the concept over time.
	I want to say a few words about the provisions on non-custodial sentences and the focus on punishment in those sentences, which in most circumstances is now the norm. I recognise that there is a real issue of public confidence regarding community sentences, which is regrettable when they are so much more effective in terms of reoffending rates than short-term custodial sentences. That confidence will not be helped if we start to get the balance of sentencing provisions wrong so that the focus on rehabilitation and reducing the offending is lost and crime rates start to rise. I therefore ask Ministers to tell us how they expect to monitor the impact of this provision and ensure that a proper, rounded approach to sentencing is sustained as it begins to take effect. In my 16 years’ experience as a sentencer in the lay magistracy, it was rare that punishment was not an element of the sentences we imposed. Surely the most important test, however, is the outcome of a sentence. The outcome we want above all is that the offending behaviour stops. I therefore hope that the impact of this policy will be carefully monitored with that in mind.
	On the provisions relating to location monitoring, as others have said technological and other developments have enabled the use of electronic monitoring to be widened and extended since it was first introduction a decade or so ago. There are also some real civil liberties and information-sharing concerns with regard to the use of these techniques. It is clear that on its own it is not a particularly effective method of reducing reoffending. It is also important that, in seeking to monitor and manage the whereabouts of an offender, we do not put members of the public, particularly those close to that offender, at greater risk. I highlight concerns about this provision when, for example, domestic violence has been an issue. I hope that Ministers will perhaps comment on that, and certainly bear it in mind.
	The Bill contains a number of important provisions that open up an avenue to new thinking. I hope that this is not seen as a definitive and ultimate position in relation to steps that can be taken to reduce reoffending and improve protection of the public. There are interesting developments, but it is important that their efficacy and effect are carefully monitored. I hope Ministers will give us the assurance tonight that it is in that spirit that they are brought forward in the Bill.

Edward Leigh: I want to speak in support of clause 38. It was inserted into the Bill by those in the other place, who voted 150 to 54 against the wishes of both the Government and the Opposition. That is quite an achievement and I pay tribute to the other place for what it has done. In passing, I say that I do not think that such a rebellion would have happened if the other place had been dominated by elected machine politicians, so once again the House of Lords has justified itself on a cross-party basis and forced the Government to see the light.
	What does clause 38 do? It removes “insulting” from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. This is a free speech reform. It has been called for, for years by civil liberties groups, gay groups, Christian groups, secular groups, right wingers and left wingers. It is opposed almost by no one, apart from the Government, until today. Sinners are always welcomed when they repent very late in life, so we should welcome the Government to the lighter side. However, the Home Secretary did not seem entirely convinced, so I hope the House will forgive me for a few moments as I try to explain the rationale for this important campaign, which has been running for years and has united Peter Tatchell and myself—quite an achievement.

David Burrowes: I, too, thoroughly welcome this change. On the issue of repenters, there is another category that my hon. Friend has not mentioned—the Opposition. The shadow Home Secretary was distinctly ambivalent in welcoming the fact that the Lords have allowed us to see sense. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that? While we may have the numbers, it is important to recognise the cross-party, cross-issue, cross-everything opposition to having “insulting” in section 5.

Edward Leigh: I do not want to be party political, because many Labour MPs have joined us in the campaign that we have been waging. This is not a Conservative-Labour issue. I cannot really understand why the Opposition are still equivocating when we have had such a long consultation and when the issues are not very difficult. I still hope that the Opposition, at the last minute, in winding up this debate, will get off the fence. The House, along with people who have been campaigning on the issue for years, are entitled to know where they are.
	The campaign has been waged for a long time. I spoke about the issue in 2011, during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012—that, too, was on Second Reading. I then tabled an amendment that was exactly the same as clause 38 in this Bill—unsurprisingly, as the same people who have been campaigning drafted both clauses. It was co-sponsored by 64 Members of the House, from every party and every shade of opinion. The Joint Committee on Human Rights—a Committee of Parliament—described it as a “human rights-enhancing measure”. We had been speaking on the issue for years, so we did everything to secure a debate. I do not want to talk too much about Government bad behaviour in the past; one should not perhaps do so when they have done something right. We got the measure tabled as new clause 1—we got there first at the end of the Committee stage. However, unfortunately, after we had got 10% of the House to co-sign it, the Government
	then took the unusual step—I will not say any more—of using a programme motion to prevent it from being debated. Why? Perhaps they feared that we might defeat the Government—something that happens very rarely in this place.
	However, we did force the Government to have a consultation, which was great. The consultation started, lasted a whole year and closed on 13 January 2012—a year ago. We were still waiting and now we have a few words from the Home Secretary. That appears to be the end of the consultation, but it would still be useful to see it, because this is an important issue. We want to know why the Government have changed their mind on this, so it would be quite nice for the consultation, a year after it was closed, to be published.
	Why is clause 38 so important? It is important because it removes section 5 of the 1986 Act, which was undermining civil liberties. The breadth of cases suggests that virtually anyone could find themselves at the wrong end of section 5. They have been cited several times, but I want to go through some good cases—there are many others—to show how section 5 was being used against civil liberties and freedom of speech. Section 5 was cited in a court summons given to a 16-year-old protester for holding a placard saying,
	“Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult”.
	A Tynesider named Kyle Little was convicted and fined under section 5 for saying, “Woof!” to two Labradors. Thankfully, that conviction was quashed. An Oxford student, Sam Brown, was arrested under section 5 for saying to a policeman,
	“Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?”
	Thames Valley police said:
	“He made homophobic comments that were deemed offensive to people passing by.”
	My friend Peter Tatchell was charged under section 5 for condemning the murder of gay people by Islamic extremists. His placards were deemed by police to be insulting and likely to cause distress. Blackpool café owner Jamie Murray was told by officers that playing DVDs showing text from the New Testament was a possible section 5 offence.
	The police have often used section 5 to freeze debate and stop difficult people speaking out, but in this place we should cherish difficult people. That is what this place is about: cherishing people who do not always go with what the establishment wants. In another case, animal rights protesters were threatened with arrest and seizure of property under section 5 for protesting against seal culling by displaying toy seals coloured with red food dye. One of my favourite cases—I think I can end on this one, because it goes against what I normally talk about and believe in—involved an atheist pensioner in Boston, in my part of the world. He wanted to place a small sign in his window saying:
	“Religions are fairy stories for adults”—
	I never thought I would repeat that in this House, but that was his crime, apparently. He was told by Lincolnshire police—our very own police—that if anyone complained, he could be arrested and dealt with under section 5.
	These cases are worrying. We might be tempted to blame poor on-the-spot decision making, but when there are so many, with such wide variation, and when some of them progress to the courts, it is no longer a joke. We have to conclude—and we have concluded; and now, thank God, the Government have concluded—that there is something wrong with the law.

Julian Huppert: It is a pleasure to be on the same side as the hon. Gentleman on this issue. What he has described is Liberal Democrat policy as well, and I am delighted that the Government have conceded on it, but has he given any thought to section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, which also deals with insulting behaviour?

Edward Leigh: Perhaps my hon. Friend will deal with that in detail when he speaks, because he makes a good point. It is important in the coalition that we try to find things for which, philosophically and honestly, we can work. One thing that is deep in our joint tradition as Liberals and Conservatives is our desire for more freedom, so it is good news that the Government are going with the grain of what the coalition is about.
	I hope the House will forgive me if I go into one or two details, because in the law the devil is always in the detail. Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws
	“threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”
	if they are “likely”—that is the important word—to cause “harassment, alarm or distress”. Clause 38 simply deletes the lowest threshold of the offence—only the lowest; that is the important point—which is the word “insulting”. That would still leave the two higher thresholds of “threatening” and “abusive”. It is important to make the point that we are not removing protection from policemen for those who may feel themselves to be threatened in some way. We all know what being threatened is like: it is quite different from being insulted. The 1986 Act does not define the terms, but the courts say that we all know them when we see them, and I think that is right. A threat is when someone is “in your face” and there is fear of violence. Abuse is when there is, for instance, obscene language. That is why Lord Hurd brought in the law—he was concerned about football hooligans and concerned to protect decent, law-abiding people from feeling threatened or abused.
	Insult, however, is clearly less serious and, above all, much more subjective. That is the point about the cases I read out: they are subjective. That is the problem. Most people are surprised to learn that insults are against the law in this country. They think that that kind of law would exist only in some kind of oppressive communist society, not in England and Wales, where traditionally we have given the world this concept of freedom of expression, and the freedom to insult people is an important part of traditional freedom. I believe—and we all know—that insults are minor compared with threats or abuse. An insult is a slight on one’s reputation; it can hurt feelings. Yet just because my feelings are hurt—because I feel that somebody over there has insulted me—should I attempt, or should the police attempt, to make them a criminal? I do not believe that is right.
	That is why we have garnered support over the years so quickly. I think virtually everybody who has looked at this issue now supports us. I mentioned the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but those supporting us also include the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Association of Chief Police Officers—that is important, because we were always told that the police were worried about this—the current Director of Public Prosecutions, as has been mentioned, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Justice, Liberty, The Daily Telegraph, the Christian Institute, the National Secular Society,
	the Peter Tatchell Foundation, Big Brother Watch, the Freedom Association. The list goes on and on. Virtually everybody is off the fence and supporting us. We now just want the Labour party to come on board.
	There is nothing party political about this issue. There is nothing in what we are arguing about that runs contrary to traditional Labour belief. After all, despite the Whips in the other place, the Lib Dems in the Lords voted for the amendment, now clause 38 in the Bill, by 29 to seven; Conservatives voted for it by 49 to 30; Labour peers rejected their own Whip and voted 23 to 16; and not a single Cross Bencher voted against it.
	Frankly, I believe that this change is not due just to the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions has come on side, as the Secretary of State said earlier. I believe that the Government comprehensively lost the arguments in the Lords. The Lords can be very good on these issues. The Minister was assailed from all sides. Even the Labour spokeswoman, Baroness Smith of Basildon had a difficult time. She suggested outlawing insults might be
	“a useful tool which…enables the police to address homophobic and religiously offensive issues.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 1126.]
	She cited a case in which section 5 was used to convict someone who peppered people on a train with foul-mouthed verbal abuse. From all sides in the House of Lords, it was pointed out that such behaviour is well beyond the scope of mere insults. It falls clearly into the realm of threatening and abusive behaviour; it would be untouched by clause 38. Under pressure from all sides, the Baroness was good enough to concede that she was open to looking at the evidence and was not opposed to change. We want to see a similarly open-minded attitude from the Labour party in this House.
	The Minister in the other place, Lord Taylor of Holbeach talked about balancing free speech with the right not to be caused alarm or distress. We all agree with that, but what does it mean in detail? Do we all have to be vulnerable to prosecution for insults so that the police can have maximum flexibility to decide whom they will or will not prosecute? I do not think that the Minister’s arguments held up. He said that the “insulting” limb of the offence gives the police
	“the flexibility they need to respond to hate crime and to defuse tension quickly in public order situations.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 1130.]
	Agreed—but the present law was just too flexible.
	What we are doing today is right. It is interesting that one of the many Conservatives to rebel was Lord Hurd, the Home Secretary who brought in section 5. At the time he did so, he made it clear that it was not intended to undermine civil liberties. No doubt he has seen what the rest of us have seen: section 5 has undermined civil liberties. He wishes to put it right, the Government want to put it right, and I welcome what the Government have done today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am changing the time limit to seven minutes for Back-Bench contributions with immediate effect.

Andrew McDonald: I share with other speakers the view that there is much to be welcomed in the Bill, including the provisions on the diversity of judicial appointments, extending the jurisdiction of youth courts and drug-driving.
	I note that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) is not in his place, but I too would like to pay tribute to the work he has done. He is quite right in what he says about other instances of the same sort of events that affected his constituent. Some 10 or so years ago, when I was practising as a solicitor, I had the privilege to represent the Nellist family of Acklam in Middlesbrough. As they returned home from an evening out—they had not been out socialising for a long time—they got off the bus opposite their home and their young son Anthony was waiting for them to come back. He was peeping out of the curtains looking to see them come home. He saw his mum and dad walk across the road, only for Susan to be struck by a speeding vehicle coming down Trimdon avenue, knocking her some clear 70 yards down the road, killing her outright.
	The self-same issues about impairment and the links between impairment and the charges levelled against the youth concerned raised their head in this case. I was involved not in the criminal side but in the civil case. When we served our proceedings on the defendant, he showed absolutely no remorse whatever. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Bizarrely in those days, he served his driving ban while serving his term of imprisonment. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who put right that wrong in subsequent years, making sure that any driving ban was served at the end of the custodial sentence. That made the sentence more relevant.
	Is it ever right for someone in such circumstances ever to get behind the wheel of a car again? Perhaps we can take a look at that as we take the Bill through Committee. Given the tragedy suffered by that family and the fact that not everyone enjoys the privilege of driving a motor car, it is not acceptable for someone in those circumstances to serve a ban for such a short period.
	I support the fight against organised crime, but we on the Labour side are concerned that the Home Secretary is undermining that fight by cutting the budget to tackle it. However, I am happy to recognise the valuable work of the north-east regional organised crime unit, which was established by the chief constables of Durham, Cleveland and Northumbria in March 2010. It consists of a specialised team of detectives who target the organised crime groups that pose the greatest threat to the communities in those three areas. No doubt the House will want to congratulate officers in the unit who, last Wednesday, used a warrant to search premises in Topcliffe, north Yorkshire, and recovered approximately 30 kg of heroin and an estimated 40 kg of amphetamine. The street value of the drugs is estimated to be between £6 million and £7 million. Two men have been charged; the investigation continues, and there is more to come.
	There is a welcome consensus on the issue of avoiding reoffending. The starting point of the consultation was a good one: the Government acknowledged that nearly half all adult offenders reoffend within a year of leaving custody, and also acknowledged the need for reform of
	the criminal justice system. Cleveland’s newly elected police and crime commissioner, Barry Coppinger—in common with many others—has made
	“diverting people from reoffending with a focus on rehabilitation and the prevention of reoffending”
	a key priority. So far, so good. It seems there is a common purpose, but the question must be whether the proposals in the Bill are adequate to assist the attaining of that vital objective.
	The powers that the Bill seeks to introduce are already available to sentencers. They can already impose punishment in combination with other elements. Lord Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice, described the proposals as
	“offensive to the judiciary, who strive to ensure that each person dealt with by them is sentenced to the appropriate sentence.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 2012; Vol. 740, c. 529.]
	Lord Ramsbotham, the former chief inspector of prisons, called them “totally unnecessary and counter-productive”.
	In the brief time remaining to me, let me say something about clause 23. My constituent David Jukes has written to me pointing out that 2,000 people are employed by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in the enforcement of criminal fines. I hope that we shall have a chance to ensure that the existing service is given every opportunity to be maintained and to succeed, and also to ensure that rigorous standards and targets are set for recovery of fines and fixed-penalty notices.
	Finally and very briefly, I want to comment on the law of self-defence as it applies to householders. I recently went around the houses in Middlesbrough, and none of those on whose doors I knocked told me of their overbearing desire to knock seven bells out of a burglar. People were more concerned about, for instance, employment and being hit by the under-occupancy tax. We must think carefully about whether clause 30 takes us any further.
	The hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) referred to the guidance notes that are issued to officers. I rather think that that tells the tale: the notes are available to officers to prevent householders from being taken to court unnecessarily, under the law as it stands—

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

Fiona Bruce: I congratulate the Government on leaving in the Bill the Lords amendment in clause 38, as it is wholly in accordance with the proud heritage of upholding free speech in this country. I thank Ministers for listening to those of us in this House, and many outside it, about the detrimental impact of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, as currently drafted. In this country, we have traditionally enjoyed great freedom of speech—we certainly have in this Chamber—but many people have felt that section 5 has curtailed it and undermined wider civil liberties, and that it needs addressing. As Liberty says in welcoming this amendment and discussing the need to remove “insulting” from section 5,
	“the mere fact that this is a criminal offence is enough to stifle freedom of expression.”
	It also states that
	“section 5 can have a chilling effect on peaceful protest.”
	In responding to the Secretary of State’s introduction to this debate, the shadow Secretary of State expressed reservations about the Government’s proposal to include clause 38 and invited examples of the detrimental impact of section 5 to be provided in Committee. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), to whom I pay tribute for his lengthy and persistent campaign on this issue, has cited some of the examples, and I wish to add a few more. I make mention of the couple who used to own a hotel but lost the business as a result of a prosecution under section 5, which arose from a conversation with a resident—a customer—who asked their views on a particular subject and then, when she did not like them, reported them.

Edward Leigh: The point is that this was not a threatening situation; it was simply a talk, over the breakfast table, in a bed and breakfast.

Fiona Bruce: That is absolutely right. Ultimately the case was thrown out by a judge, but the strain of enduring the prosecution process proved too much for that couple and they could not keep that business going.
	I am particularly concerned about the arrests of individuals under section 5 for expressing views relating to their faith, because I am a committed Christian. Another case was that of Jamie Murray, who runs a café in Blackpool. He had displayed texts from the New Testament on his café wall but received a visit from two police officers who said that they had received a complaint and were investigating a possible offence under section 5. The complaint was simply about Bible texts. Bible texts can be found outside many churches across this land and inscribed on buildings. There are Bible verses on the floor of the Central Lobby in this place and I can even see scripture engraved on the door behind the Speaker’s Chair. However, section 5 is apparently so broad that police in Lancashire thought it banned the Bible. The obvious problem with section 5 is that the word “insulting” is too vague and too subjective; what one person might consider insulting may not trouble another at all.
	Incidents such as those I have mentioned frighten people; even where the person does not end up with a criminal record, they create a chilling effect. I now know of church ministers who fear a knock on the door simply for preaching historic Christian truths at their own pulpits. That cannot be right, which is why clause 38 is so welcome. The wording of the current provision needs to be trimmed back; as the recent report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights said, it
	“constitutes a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression.”
	The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has said that
	“the word ‘insulting’ could safely be removed without the risk of undermining the ability of the CPS to bring prosecutions.”
	A gap will not be left in the law; the word “abusive” should cover the issue satisfactorily.
	I could cite many other instances, not necessarily involving faith aspects: the concerning issue of the 16-year-old man threatened with prosecution for peacefully
	holding a placard that said, “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult”; the animal rights activists who displayed models of red seals, with the red representing blood; the street-preaching pensioner with Asperger’s who was convicted and fined under section 5 for holding a religious placard—Peter Tatchell, while not agreeing with his opinions, has fully and publicly expressed his right to express them. All or any of those cases, or the views expressed within them, might be regarded as controversial, but what hope is there for free speech if someone can dial 999 every time they hear something controversial? What a colossal waste of police time.
	Many groups, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has already stated, have expressed concern about section 5 of the Public Order Act, and I am delighted to note the support received in the Lords from so many worthy Members, including a former chief inspector of constabulary, a former Lord Chancellor, a former DPP and the chair of Liberty.
	I also pay tribute to those outside the House who have campaigned on the issue, particularly those who have spearheaded the “Reform Section 5” campaign, with which I have been associated since its launch last year. It is a joint initiative of the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society; how many other causes could unite such implacable foes?
	We are all familiar with the statement attributed to Voltaire: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I know that that sentiment resonates within this House, and that is what clause 38 is all about. history has shown that, if societies do not take opportunities such as the one presented by clause 38 to underline and reinforce the importance of free speech, other precious liberties can begin to slide away. Once we cross a Rubicon and allow infringements of free speech, how many other freedoms disappear? I am sure that we all support the campaign of the Chinese journalists for free speech in their press; we should equally support clause 38 and free speech in this country. The United Kingdom has been a beacon of free speech to the world. This is a chance to underscore that reputation.
	The publicity it has generated means that the debate on section 5 has been followed not only by a wide cross-section of society in this country but by people around the world. I hope that, through clause 38, we can give them something to celebrate and that Opposition Members will join us when we come to vote on it.

John McDonnell: I want to deal with a couple of clauses that have not been referred to so far, but before I do so let me express my support for the comments made by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) about clause 31 and the concerns expressed by others about clause 34 and visa appeals. The abolition of those appeals will have a direct impact on my constituents and I believe that there will be a considerable backlash in the community. Let me also express my support for clause 29, which abolishes the offence of scandalising the judiciary as a contempt of court. I understand which case that relates to, but I feel that scandalising the judiciary should be a right, if not a duty, every now and again.
	Three clauses have so far not been mentioned in any detail. The first is clause 16, on the establishment of the family courts. It has been genuinely welcomed, as has the introduction of mediation in the processes of the family courts and the greater emphasis given to it. Concerns have been expressed, however, by Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service officers and family law practitioners about the need to ensure that there is adequate insurance in the delegated legislation and the guidance that the views of the children in these cases are properly represented and protected. I hope that there will be further dialogue with professionals in CAFCASS, in particular, who will be able to advise on the detailed implementation of the legislation, and of this clause in particular.
	Let me turn now to clauses 23 and 24. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) mentioned the issue with clause 23, which effectively privatises the functions of the officers dealing with the collection of fees. They are judicial functions, which is a step forward in privatisation that we have not seen before. Clause 23 facilitates the contracting out of all the functions of fines officers and makes provision for the cost of collecting compensation, fines and other financial penalties to be recovered from offenders. That will effectively mean contracting out the functions of those officers to private bailiffs. Let me remind hon. Members of those functions: the decision to make a deduction from benefits order; the making of an attachment of earnings order; and the ordering or varying of the length of time to pay or the amount of the instalments that are payable. Those functions relate to the exercise of judicial power and the sentencing of criminals and they are to be privatised.
	My concern about that is that as Members we have all experienced the role of bailiffs in our constituencies. In its evidence to Government in the consultation, “Transforming bailiff action”, Citizens Advice reported that it was dealing with nearly 25,000 cases involving problems with private bailiffs. Citizens Advice said that it
	“has been seeing problems with the practices of private sector bailiffs for many years and these problems seem to be growing. Unfair practices we see include: misrepresenting powers; intimidating behaviour; charging fees in excess of what is allowable in law; failing to accept reasonable (in the circumstances of the debtor) offers of payment”,
	and failing to recognise vulnerable debtors in particular. We are now passing over a key element of the judicial system to private bailiffs, who have this record of failure.

Andrew McDonald: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the court staff have had some significant successes in recent times, increasing the rate of recovery by 14%? Does he agree that that improved performance is to be welcomed and that they should be congratulated?

John McDonnell: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. There are 2,000 people out there in the service, consistently meeting the targets set for them by Government and improving their record of service by 15% last year, not 14%, as he said. These loyal, dedicated staff, who are professionals in their own field, have delivered, yet are being threatened with privatisation. We are handing over this function to a group of people who we know are causing large numbers of our constituents severe
	problems as a result of their behaviour in the performance of their duties in other areas of fine collection and in the system as a whole.
	All that is being asked for is the opportunity for existing staff to bid for their jobs. As the Bill stands, they will be excluded from being able to continue to perform the functions that they currently perform. Moreover, clause 24 would make available information held by HMRC to private bailiffs for use in the collection of fines. That is a step too far and it breaches people’s ability to maintain personal privacy with regard to their taxation affairs. That was never envisaged in previous consultations.
	We have had experience of privatisation in the Ministry of Justice in recent times. Members in all parts of the House have raised the problems that we have had with the contracting out of the court interpreter services, which saw only 58% of bookings met. It resulted in chaos in the courts and criticism from the Public Accounts Committee.
	I urge the Government to think twice about the proposed privatisation of an important service that is critical to many of our constituents, and to back the concept that what works is what matters. If the existing system is working effectively, it should not be put at risk as a result of what seems to be an ideological decision, rather than one based upon practice. It would be worth while for the Minister to sit down with some of the existing practitioners to gain their advice and, if the Government want further improvements in the service, to work with the existing staff—with the grain of the service—to achieve those improvements, rather than to go forward with this wholesale privatisation, which will prove to be not only counterproductive but, for many of our constituents, catastrophic.

Simon Reevell: I shall concentrate on one aspect of the Bill: clause 30, which deals with self-defence and which has been touched on already by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara). The clause introduces important practical changes, but I wonder whether it concentrates too much on where things are happening and not enough on what is taking place.
	The title of clause 30 is “Use of force in self-defence at place of residence”. It has been suggested that the result of the provision is that an Englishman’s home is his castle, but I wonder whether an individual grappling with a burglar at 2 am is worrying about where he is, rather than what is actually happening. In other words, is his concern the defence of his own person, rather than the defence of his property?
	I hope that my examples will demonstrate the importance of that point. Imagine a person who runs a petrol station in a rural area and lives in a house 100 yards away. If he is attacked in his home, the new law will apply, but if he is attacked at the petrol station just as he turns out the lights and is about to lock up, or while he is walking from the petrol station to the house, it will not apply. Someone who works as a night watchman is protected by the new law while they are at home, but when they arrive for work, the provisions will not apply. A vicar is covered if the burglars come to the vicarage,
	but if he goes to investigate a light in the church at night and behaves in the same way there, the new law does not apply.
	We have heard an interesting example involving a farmer. If a farmer hears a noise downstairs in his home and goes to investigate with a shotgun that he has taken from his gun safe in his hand, the new law will apply, but if, after he has been shooting legitimately, he is wandering back through his farmyard and goes to investigate a noise where all his expensive machinery is kept, and is then boxed in by the same people and reacts in the same way as in his home, the proposed law will not protect him.
	Leaving aside the obvious point that we are asking people to remember that the law is different depending on whether they are at home, just outside their home or at work, notwithstanding the fact that they could be attacked by the same person in the same way and in the same early hours of the morning, a different test will apply if ever someone who is alleged to have breached the new law by behaving in a certain way is tried alongside someone who dealt with another member of the gang, but happened to do so in an outbuilding. The person who confronted one of the burglars in his home may rely on the new law, but his brother or son who behaved in exactly the same way towards another member of the gang in the outbuilding will not be protected at all.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman is setting out an interesting argument. Does he accept that anyone who uses only proportionate force, given the circumstances as they believe them to be, will always be protected?

Simon Reevell: The point of the clause is to put in place the new test, but that test applies only in a dwelling.
	The clause gets even more bizarre when we consider proposed new subsection (8B), which deals with the corner shop with a flat above. A shop owner who comes downstairs from the flat and meets a burglar in the shop premises will be fine, because he will be covered by the new definition, but the person who lives next door and has to step out on to the street before going into the shop to start their work there for the day, and who encounters exactly the same circumstances when locking up for the night, will not be covered. If those two people meet the burglar while the premises are open, the shop owner who lives on site has the advantage of the new law, because the shop is part of the building in which their flat is located, but his assistant does not, so a different test will be applied to two people in exactly the same circumstances and encountering exactly the same villainy—and, indeed, the same villain.That cannot be a sensible revision, and the reason is that the focus is on the place of residence as opposed to what the problem really is, which is self-defence.
	If this was reconsidered, and if instead of the test relating to the dwelling it related to whether the person was a victim of a criminal enterprise, all the examples I have given would be neutralised, because in all of them the person concerned would have been a victim of a criminal enterprise, whether it was in the church, the petrol station, at home, walking from one to the other,
	at work as a night watchman or outside as a farmer. If that were the trigger, the person concerned could rely on the new test, but as it is drafted, all those contradictions apply.
	Subsection (6) makes it clear that this would not be a retrospective provision, and I understand that, but the amount of publicity generated by this clause means that to a lot of people out there the law has changed already. It would be ridiculous to have somebody waiting to face trial in circumstances where once the legislation was passed, a prosecution would never be brought, because the test would have changed. In whatever form the section appears in the Act, it needs to be introduced as soon as possible so that people do not rely on it before it is available for them to rely upon.
	I should have said at the beginning, and so I say at the end, that I draw attention to the fact that, as a practising member of the Bar, I have an interest.

George Mudie: I want to speak about the withdrawal of family reunion visas. The Government propose to do away with recourse to an independent judge, in place of which they say that a fresh application should be made to the same people who turned down the application in the first place—an additional paper might swing the case. I have 20 years of personal experience of visa work in my constituency. In 2000, the decision of the Labour Government was deeply and warmly welcomed by the ethnic communities, families who have come here but have mums and dads, grandparents and siblings in another country. We all speak about family values, but I think that all hon. Members will agree that they should be treasured. It is important that in the event of a wedding, a birth, an illness, a funeral, even just so that the old lass can see her daughter and grandchildren, family members should have the opportunity to visit.
	I want briefly to describe some of my experiences. There is the elderly person, an old lass, from a village in Pakistan who wants to visit her daughter and granddaughter. The decision is that there is something in the papers—something that the old lass knows nothing about—that leads someone to believe that the motivation for coming is not the one set out. Case closed—refused. There is the person who has come here two or three times and every time has returned home within the visa period, but that is not taken into consideration. They are not trusted to go back. Cases are turned down because documents not asked for were not given. I had a recent case concerning a man who I thought was 80, but rather than mislead the House I will settle for the 70s. One of the reasons for his being turned down was that he did not give the entry clearance officer any details of his employment. The provision means that the applicant has to go back to that entry clearance officer for a decision rather than an independent judge.
	It might be said that I am prejudiced about those cases, but I have three reports from the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, John Vine. The second one says:
	“While there were no decision quality issues revealed in 761 cases”
	out of 1,500 cases
	“I found there were errors affecting decision quality in 515 cases. In a further 201 cases the lack of evidence retained on file made it impossible for me to assess whether the correct decision had been made.”
	The same report from 2011 said:
	“The general quality of decision-making can and must be improved.”
	In 2010 John Vine discovered that UK Border Agency managers were dismissive of determinations made by immigration judges to allow appeals. More importantly still, he found that because these cases were being dealt with in Abu Dhabi, where all the Pakistani cases go for a decision, people from the Gulf were being treated in a better fashion than people from Pakistan. It took John Vine’s intervention to address that. He is saying, as the professional commissionaire, that there is a lot wrong.
	My personal experience—I think this goes for any inner-city Member with a large ethnic community—is that the situation is dreadful. The Minister will say, “No, we’re not asking you just to pay the fee again and send it back—we’re suggesting that you read the decision, see what basis you have been turned down on, and send those papers.” I have got news for the Minister: if someone brings me a decision letter and asks for my help, I go through it closely to see what the entry clearance officer is asking for or is turning a person down for, and then write a considered letter, get the evidence and send it for a review, as every Member of this House can. I can count on one hand the number of times when the entry clearance officer changes the decision; despite the fresh evidence, the decision is upheld. The Minister is going to tell our communities, “Don’t go to an independent judge.” Why do people want to go to an independent judge? It is not because 38% of cases are accepted, but because they will have someone who will listen, ask questions, ask for documents, and take a decision based on all those points.
	I plead with the Minister to reconsider the heartbreaking decision to withdraw this right of appeal and to keep it, because it is desperately needed.

David Burrowes: I declare an interest as a criminal defence solicitor.
	I welcome the Bill and want to draw out some nuggets that I believe can, in certain circumstances, be refined to be even more golden. On the whole thrust of the Bill in terms of efficiency and coherency, I welcome and support the single county court and single family court provisions. I particularly draw the Minister’s attention to the jurisdiction issue in relation to the youth court. The Government’s approach is to triage cases into the appropriate courts. The nugget that I particularly welcome is the change giving youth courts the power to grant gang-related injunctions. That is welcome in my constituency and in the borough of Enfield. We were the first north London borough to obtain a gang-related injunction, which led to a 14-month prison sentence. Indeed, the cross-partnership work in the borough has led to a 50% reduction in serious gang crime-related violence.
	However, there needs to be flexibility. We can perhaps go further in making this nugget even more golden when dealing with young offenders. We have seen across courts the value of community justice, having drawn from America the examples of Red Hook and Harlem, and now there is the example of Liverpool as well.
	In our whole approach to community justice we must recognise that when someone comes to court they come with a whole package of concerns that may well go across jurisdictions. That arises particularly when dealing with young offenders, given the need for timely and effective intervention.
	From my experience over the years, I know that young offenders often come with a package of family problems. They might well be the victims of abuse. There will often be parenting issues, and some children who appear before the youth court should be in care. At the very least, they are likely to be vulnerable. The magistrates who deal with them often also sit on the bench of the family division, and they have been expressing their frustration for a number of years that they cannot intervene quickly to enable those young people to get into the family court where appropriate welfare orders can be made. That is what happens in the Scandinavian jurisdictions, and the possibility of it happening here has been mooted by the Government in the past.
	This is not a new issue. I refer hon. Members to the Home Office consultation document produced in March 1997 entitled “Preventing Children Offending”. Paragraph 103 states:
	“Under the law at present, the Youth Court is not able to refer children to the Family Proceedings Court for consideration of a care or supervision order. It is possible that this might be a useful additional power which would enable the Youth Court to deal more effectively with difficult children.”
	We then had an election, and the rest is history. I still believe that that proposal would be welcome, however, and it should be looked into. We have an opportunity to try to get young people into the right jurisdiction. The proposal has also been welcomed recently by the Youth Justice Board, which is very supportive of it. When John Drew, the chief executive, spoke at the board’s annual conference in November, he welcomed the opportunity, in appropriate cases, to get children to where they needed to be, which could well include the family court.
	Another nugget in the Bill is the provision on community penalties. I welcome the proposal to ensure that there will be a punitive element to them. That is appropriate because, when an offence is serious enough to warrant a community penalty, the deprivation of liberty must be implicit in that penalty. That will now be the case. I also welcome the provision to allow the courts to defer sentencing at the pre-sentence report stage in relation to the provision of restorative justice. Fifteen years ago, I was involved in a pilot at Haringey magistrates court in which sentencing was deferred to accommodate restorative justice conferencing. We have been through many such pilots and reviews over the years, and the evidence is clear. It is about time we got on and dealt with this, and I welcome the fact that the Government are now pushing the measure forward. It will be based on the need not only for restorative justice but for quality restorative justice. We need to look at the details to ensure that the right people will be dealing with the provisions, and that the provisions are victim led and carried out to the satisfaction of the victims. That could well lead to a reduction in reoffending.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned the provisions on fines. I welcome the changes in the Bill. Yes, they may lead to contracting out; “may” is a very important word in legislation. This is not about wholesale privatisation. The ideological
	bent is that we are on the side of the victims, all too many of whom are not receiving the compensation due to them. The financial penalties involved are simply not being paid, which is why we need to pursue all options to ensure that fines can be collected more effectively and quickly, especially in relation to compensation orders. The burden of the collection costs should fall not on the taxpayer but on the offender, and I welcome the fact that that will now happen.
	I also welcome the new offence of drug-driving; it is about time that it was introduced. As a legal practitioner, I have defended many cases that were unable properly to be proven in relation to the impairment caused by an intake of drugs. I have seen the gaps that prevent such cases from being properly proved in court. The Bill provides clarity in that regard. We need to proceed with caution, however, and to ensure that cases are based on evidence and examine the specified levels. This is a complex area in relation to particular opioids and certain other drugs. We need to focus on ensuring clarity in the law, so that we do not allow people on prescribed medication to fall foul of the legislation, when its target is those who are flagrantly taking drugs and going out in a vehicle and causing a menace to others.
	There is a medical defence in the Bill, but that might not be enough when a person is arrested and taken into custody. That person will have had their liberty taken away and will then have to prove their medical evidence in court. We shall have to see how we can deal with such cases proportionately, when we produce the guidance. On sentencing, I note that schedule 18 contains a provision to up the sentence for being unfit to drive owing to drug-taking to the equivalent of the sentence for causing death by careless driving. We need to ensure there is equity with driving with excess alcohol."
	I welcome those and other provisions in the Bill, some of which will perhaps receive further refinement in Committee. I am also grateful to the Government for acceding to the wish of Members across the House and in the other place that the term “insulting” be removed from clause 5. That is welcome on the grounds of religious freedom and freedom of speech; it also demonstrates common sense.

Mark Durkan: I join other hon. Members in welcoming clause 38 as a sensible, proportionate adjustment with regard to public order. Clause 29, which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has touched on, would remove the offence of scandalising the judiciary in England and Wales. However, the change is being made because a Member of this House found themselves cited on exactly that charge in the courts of Northern Ireland, so the issue is not being addressed where the problem arose. Will the Minister clarify whether, when and if the Northern Ireland Assembly gets around to having a legislative consent motion, that consent could allow the Bill to be further amended so that the removal of the offence of scandalising the judiciary in Northern Ireland could be accommodated?
	Other aspects of the Bill also relate to Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) has just come back into the Chamber at the wrong time, because he will hear from me the familiar refrain that he used to hear when he was
	security Minister for Northern Ireland. I think that, in his book, I and my party colleagues are Patten pedants. We are insistent on keeping to the precise architecture, thrust and spirit of the Patten policing reforms and to protecting the Patten dispensation. The previous Government did some injury to that as a result of moves to put national security policing in Northern Ireland in the hands of MI5. Those activities were moved beyond the purview of the accountable policing structures in Northern Ireland, such as the scrutiny undertaken by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland for the Northern Ireland Policing Board, which is where the ombudsman had been sensibly and deliberately placed.
	The establishment of the National Crime Agency adds a further complication, because the Bill will create an additional police force and constables. Indeed, special constables will be created again in Northern Ireland. Having many years ago, courtesy of the civil rights movement, seen off the B Specials, we now face the potential appointment of NCA specials by the director general of the National Crime Agency. If we look at the Bill’s schedules, we will see that some people can be both NCA specials and Police Service of Northern Ireland officers, but that anything they do in one capacity cannot be cited in relation to anything they do in the other. The Bill provides that they can hold, coterminously, those two sets of constable powers, which will have serious implications for the Policing Board with regard to its key oversight role on policing. It will also create potential difficulties down the road for the police ombudsman in dealing with any complaints, and it means, presumably, that officers who are both NCA specials and PSNI officers will be subject to two separate complaint authorities.

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is making some important points that the Committee will need to consider in detail when the Bill is scrutinised line by line. Does he not agree that the most important thing is that, when a Serious Organised Crime Agency officer and, in future, an NCA officer acts with the powers of a constable in Northern Ireland, they should be as accountable to the police ombudsman as they would be if they were a police officer of Northern Ireland?

Mark Durkan: That is one of the things that has to be tested and clarified. If we look at some of the ousters that seem to be built into the schedules, we see that it appears that somebody cannot be cited in one capacity for something they do in another. That needs to be tested in Committee.
	The Bill provides for a compulsion to be issued to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. There is obviously provision for there to be co-operation and engagement between the NCA and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, but there is also provision for directed assistance, which allows the Department of Justice to direct the Policing Board to provide particular assistance, whether or not the Policing Board wants to make that provision. It seems to me that the director of the National Crime Agency will be in a position almost to require the Department of Justice to, in turn, impose a requirement on the PSNI via the Policing Board. The Policing Board was given specific, deliberately assembled and properly protected powers in the Patten dispensation. It seems to me that those are being casually injured in these provisions.
	Many people in Northern Ireland will judge the performance of the National Crime Agency on whether it improves on the work that has been undertaken by SOCA and the Organised Crime Task Force, which is linked in to HMRC, SOCA, the PSNI and the Garda Siochana and deals not least with the issues of fuel smuggling, drugs and waste trafficking. People will ask about the difference between the NCA and SOCA. We know that the NCA will have four command areas and a bigger brief. I suppose that it is like the old advert for Baxters soup: “The difference is in the thickness.” People will want to know whether the difference is in the effectiveness of the way in which the agency works. In Northern Ireland, many of us are also concerned about the effectiveness of its partnership and engagement with others, such as the PSNI and the oversight mechanisms. It seems to me that not enough sensitivity has been shown so far to the interests of the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Policing Board.
	This is an example of a Bill that could have particular implications in Northern Ireland. Yet again, the Government tell us that there will be a legislative consent motion from the Assembly, but no legislative consent motion has been put. This is another example of there not being joined-up scrutiny between legislators in this Chamber and in the devolved Assembly. With the Welfare Reform Act 2012, we had a different device. That legislation has passed through Parliament and it is just assumed that a karaoke Bill will be taken through the Assembly, with people able to change very little. They can sing it in their own accent, but no significant details can be changed, and yet it appears on paper as though it is a Bill. The legislative consent motion from the Assembly for this Bill will probably come after it is done and dusted. There needs to be better, more joined-up scrutiny on such matters.
	Finally, I join other hon. Members in expressing concern about clauses 34 and 36 in relation to immigration and visas.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am changing the time limit again. There are three remaining speakers. We need to get to the winding-up speeches by 9.40. I will set the limit at six minutes, but if there are interventions, I will reduce it again.

Paul Beresford: This being a lawyers’ Bill, I am tiptoeing in with great caution. I will touch briefly on two issues, the first of which is self-defence.
	I learned a little about the self-defence issue a few years ago when I observed one of my neighbour’s windows being jemmied open by a gentleman. As he went through the window, I collected him by his heel and brought him back. He and I had a physical discussion, shall we say, and when the police arrived to collect him, he pointed out that his face was a different shape from the face that had arrived on the premises. While saying “I know my rights,” he asked the police to arrest me. Fortunately for me, the police took the gentleman away. When the policeman came back, he said to me, “At least you remembered to turn him round before you hit him. Therefore, it’s self-defence.” I did not say a word, but I went off and prayed, which is rare.
	In my constituency, there are a lot of shops in the villages, most of which have accommodation attached. Many of them are burgled on and off by people coming down from London, and this change will give them just a little more of a feeling that they can use self-defence. Some of them do so—some of them use self-defence that comes on four legs with a lot of teeth. I hope that the retail aspect of the provision will cover more than just shops, because many of my villages have cafeterias, restaurants and pubs. I wonder whether the Bill will apply to pubs as well as shops, because almost all my local pubs have residents above them.

Damian Green: indicated dissent.

Paul Beresford: From the way the Minister is shaking his head, perhaps it will not.
	The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) mentioned CEOP, and I must congratulate him because it was a wonderful invention. It has been very effective and is getting more so. Unlike him, however, I believe that it should be in the NCA. CEOP works nationally and works for the UK internationally, examining individuals, gangs in the UK, international trafficking gangs and some of our citizens who take their child sex activities overseas. It is a logical step to link it with the organised crime police teams, the immigration teams, the border teams and so on.
	The previous chief of CEOP was opposed to the proposed change and resigned in a bit of a huff, which I really think was illogical. Peter Davies, the newish head of CEOP, is right behind the change. I believe that is as well, because we are starting to see new nasties appearing in the field. There are signs of increasing trafficking, ritual abuse and possible multiple murder. The depths to which child abuse appears to be able to sink are beyond what any of us would have thought. The police are fighting it, but setting up the NCA with CEOP as part of it must help us, and I certainly support the Bill and CEOP’s move into the NCA.

Julian Huppert: It is a pleasure to be called to speak. This is a large Bill, and it has been noticeable that most of the debate has focused on a few specific parts of it. That is a tribute to the fact that the rest of it is clearly less contentious and rather more successful.
	I wish to highlight a few concerns that I have. I welcome the creation of the National Crime Agency in part 1, but an important question is how we can keep the SOCA brand internationally. I look forward to the Home Secretary’s work on that. I have a couple of concerns about how the NCA is to be inspected and made transparent. The Bill allows for Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to examine the NCA but allows discretion as to whether the Independent Police Complaints Commission will examine it. It seems to me that the NCA will be fundamentally a policing body and should be subject to the IPCC in the usual way. I hope that that will happen through primary legislation.
	Similarly, the NCA is excluded from the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In many cases, of course, it would be inappropriate for it to be subject to FOI, but a
	number of other organisations, such as the police, the immigration services and Customs are not exempt but provide information where they can. It would be in the interests of transparency for a similar provision to be made in this case.
	I do not have time to go through the details of much of the Bill, but I am aware that clause 30 has received a lot of interest in the House. It is clear that the current law allows force to be used against a trespasser if that force is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances as they were considered at the time. That is an important defence, because people can make errors of judgment in the heat of activity. However, the Bill takes it a lot further, as it will mean that somebody can use self-defence even if they use a disproportionate level of force given the facts as they believe them to be at the time. It will not allow grossly disproportionate force, but it will allow people to be disproportionate.
	I absolutely understand that in many cases, someone who has tried to defend themselves should not be arrested but should be treated as a victim while the matter is examined. However, it seems to me that people should be sensible and use only proportionate force, and that we should not allow disproportionate force. We need a change not in legislation but in how the police interact with people in such circumstances.
	There is some extremely good stuff in schedule 15 to the Bill about restorative justice—an issue core to Liberal Democrat thinking for a long time. A lot of research backs up the role of restorative justice, and I pay particular tribute to Professor Larry Sherman who has done a huge amount of the fundamental research showing how effective it is. I am pleased that the Government are putting money into restorative justice but they may need to make rather more than £1.5 million available, particularly if it turns out to be successful and very popular. We know that restorative justice reduces reoffending and is far more satisfactory to victims than prison is. I am also pleased with progress on community sentencing.
	There has been a large discussion about family visit visas and there is a problem with the incredibly high appeal rate—the figure I have seen was something like 60%. It seems that there are two possible solutions: the first is to have better decision making by UK Border Agency, and the second—the option the Government have chosen to adopt—is simply to stop appeals happening. We need the Border Agency to be much clearer about the information it requests and give people the opportunity to provide extra information that was not initially required. That could solve the problem in a far simpler and less draconian way.
	I would be grateful for the Minister’s comment—it may be a written answer—on the specific issue of citizenship for the children of unmarried British fathers when the child was born before 2006. The former Immigration Minister has highlighted that the anomaly would be changed when there was legislative opportunity, and I wonder whether it might be possible to include that in the Bill. If not, we will have to wait until the next one.
	I am delighted that the House of Lords voted to remove the word “insulting” from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. That is in line with Liberal Democrat policy and we have already heard many instances
	of where that provision was unreasonable. I hope the Government will reflect on section 4A of that Act, which has similar provisions about insulting behaviour. There are other steps that I hope the Government will consider or review to try to protect freedom of speech, such as, for example, section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which was used so inappropriately in the Twitter joke trial.
	In the last minute remaining, I want to consider drug-driving. I am strongly in favour of a drug-driving offence that mirrors that of drink-driving. There is definitely a problem with people who are incapable of safely driving a vehicle being in a situation where they could cause serious to harm to other people. That is right and I accept that the current position requires too high a level of proof. However, one should not use this measure as an excuse to deal specifically with illicit drugs; it should be tailored to existing levels of impairment. In fact, alcohol seems to be the most worrying issue.
	A specific issue has been raised with me by Napp Pharmaceuticals, a company in Cambridge that is concerned about the effects of the proposed legislation on patients taking legitimate, prescribed medicines, in particular to manage chronic pain. There is significant evidence to suggest that their ability to drive may not be impaired compared with other drivers, but the patient would have the onerous burden of proof to show that they should be allowed to drive. Napp Pharmaceuticals is concerned about the consequences of that and would rather stick with the approach of the Road Traffic Act 1988. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on that.

John Hemming: There are some very good things in this Bill, but while I declare my interest in justice for families and concern about miscarriages of justice in the family courts, I have to say that it is also a missed opportunity. Lord Bingham’s excellent book “The Rule of Law” identifies eight principles for the rule of law. The first two are that the law should be accessible and not depend upon judicial discretion. That underlines that law should be comprehensible to non-lawyers and hence it should be possible to identify miscarriages of justice even when appeals are not allowed by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal should not be seen as having a form of papal infallibility.
	My academic qualifications are in science rather than law, and that is where my concern about family court proceedings comes from. Rachel Pullen’s case—I recently assisted her to send it to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights—is a perfect example of that. She was deemed on the basis of a single expert report to have a significant learning disability and not to have the capacity to instruct a solicitor. I am, however, lucky enough to have had access to a second expert report, the comments of her GP and an IQ assessment for employment, and to have met her. All those things point to the original expert being plainly wrong. However, the case has been considered by the county court, the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords Judicial Committee and the initial Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights without that being picked up.
	Sadly, that case is not unique. I have spoken previously in Westminster Hall on 21 March—at column 244WH—about other people whose mental capacity has been wrongly removed from them and I will not repeat those
	details now. If a case can travel through the appellate system to Strasbourg without the scientific facts being properly determined or even open to challenge, there is a serious problem.
	A more recent case is unique because the mother kept her capacity, having faced its removal after an allegation of querulous paranoia by her barrister. She had been asked to spend £3,880 on an expert’s fee, even though the NHS had previously found no diagnosable conditions and her employer stated that she seemed fine. Nevertheless, she managed to win the battle as litigant in person with the assistance of a McKenzie friend. That does, however, raise serious questions about equality of arms. Nothing in the Bill will improve the situation when many people have their capacity wrongly removed or improve the quality and accountability of scientific expert evidence. There are two possible solutions: a Daubert procedure would assist for a case-by-case review, while allowing academic access to secret proceedings, as I suggested in my family justice private Member’s Bill, would provide a level of quality control currently lacking.
	The proposal in the Bill to allow proceedings to be broadcast could help to improve the integrity of the legal system. Early-day motion 536 refers to a case heard on 2 May. Initially, the McKenzie friend who assisted the mother in that appeal told me it had been allowed, but after I chased it for six weeks’, a transcript was found stating that it had been lost, which caused me concern as I had been told that it had been allowed. I therefore wrote to the court in July requesting that I be allowed to listen to the official recording, but I got no response.
	Hence in October I wrote to the Minister. I then had a response from both the Court and the Minister saying that the rules had been changed and that I could not now listen to the hearing. I wrote asking for the reasons, and it was only in late December that I was told by the judicial office that the Judicial Executive Board had decided not to allow people to listen to official recordings. Its argument was that in theory a recording in open court could include legally privileged material. I would argue that someone speaking in open court who knows that everything is being recorded would not expect the conditions needed for privilege. The judicial office has also said that the JEB is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and hence we have no idea who participated in the meeting that made this decision or when it was taken.
	To me that looks like a cover-up, but we do not know. If it is, we need to know who was involved, how high it went and why. It is puzzling that people have failed to say when this rule change happened. If the pronouncement of the judgment was broadcast, under clause 28, we would have an independent copy of the hearing and would be able to check why there was a discrepancy between the report of the hearing and the official transcript. Another thing missing from the Bill is a proposal to make the JEB clearly subject to the Freedom of Information Act. It is arguably caught by the Judicial Studies Board being subject to FOI, but that is not made explicit in the Act.
	The difficulty in obtaining transcripts of judgments is an important problem that is causing difficulties in ensuring that the appellate system operates properly. There were two cases in Birmingham recently where there was no transcript on the file. It took almost three
	months to obtain the transcript in one of these cases. The Bill does nothing about this. Furthermore, an appeal from the family proceedings court to the county court can exhaust domestic proceedings. That might be good for anyone wishing to take a case to Europe, but it raises a further question about the integrity of the legal system if the Court of Appeal cannot look at something before it leaves the domestic jurisdiction. The Bill, in creating a single family court, might deal with this, but it is a matter of detail that needs to be sorted out.
	I have helped litigants in person with three cases that involved appeals in the Court of Appeal where the appeal was allowed. I will not go into the details, because I do not have time, but all the appeals were allowed. One can have no certainty that any of these appeals would have gone before the Court without my involvement, and I am not a lawyer. I see many cases that I think would win appeals, but it is simply the procedural complications of getting the paperwork together, including access to the original case files and judgments, that prevents this.
	I am also aware of a number of cases where a party is frightened to appeal because they are likely to face the judge in the Court of First Instance again and fear the use of judicial discretion to punish them for appealing. To me, appeals that have the potential to be allowed but which are not heard are miscarriages of justice just as much as the case referred to in early-day motion 835—a case where the parents were banned from talking to the media in any way. The Bill does nothing to deal with any of those situations.
	The Bill does deal with conflicts of interest relating to judges—in paragraph 8 of schedule 9—but it remains the case that a firm of solicitors can act for parents in one case against a local authority and act for the same local authority in a second case, even with the same individual solicitor doing the work. That is a clear conflict of interest and gives rise to what is known as repeat player prejudice. I have seen a number of cases where this conflict of interest appears to have had an effect on the advice given and the consequent outcome for parents. A social worker previously told me how he had colluded with parents’ solicitors to ensure that the parents lost. However, this conflict of interest appears to be tolerated by the system, and the Bill proposes no modification.
	The House of Commons often does not manage to scrutinise proposals effectively where there is not a proper party or adversarial division. This, even if I rushed my speech, is one of those areas.

Jenny Chapman: I am afraid I will sound rather slow after the previous speaker. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) made a speech at great speed; he managed to read it quickly into the record—well done.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) added his support for GPS tagging, which we will explore further in Committee. He made some sensible comments on restorative justice, emphasising the need for consent and full involvement of the victim at all times—something we will also explore deeply in Committee. We are very keen to ensure that the quality of restorative justice is maintained.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) spoke of the tensions between national and local policing, and gave his support, following Norgrove, for the single family court, as did the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn gave a succinct analysis of what is becoming known as the “bash a burglar” clause, and promoted his memoirs. We all look forward to the film of those memoirs. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) suggested that the clause was not actually that great a change; in fact, he said it was not a change at all. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) discussed at some length the complexities and contradictions in the Bill. He highlighted some issues that I think will get a thorough airing in Committee.
	The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) raised concerns about the anxiety of witnesses arising from the televising of court proceedings. We look forward to exploring those concerns fully in Committee. We are keen to ensure the protection of witnesses, victims, jurors and also defendants through the court process.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) mentioned something that I think will be of grave concern to many Members: the right of appeal on family visit visas. There are fears about the serious impact on families. Bearing in mind the high level of errors in decision making, we are keen to discuss that further. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East went on to discuss the welcome changes to drug-driving. We can all commend the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) for the work he has done in that area.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) spoke with great insight on diversity in the judiciary. We strongly welcome those changes. We are also keen to explore the issues raised by Alan Milburn in his social mobility report on the under-representation of state-educated people in the judiciary.
	The hon. Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) spoke of the importance of amending the Public Order Act 1986. The hon. Member for Gainsborough asked that the Labour party keep an open mind, and I assure him that we will do just that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) is concerned about whether there will be sufficient resources to fight organised crime, and we share those concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) discussed the scandalising of the judiciary, suggesting that it should not just be a right, but perhaps become a duty. He discussed clause 23 and expressed concerns about the practices of bailiffs, and I assure him that we will be exploring those concerns in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) talked about how the National Crime Agency will operate in Northern Ireland, and the Government will need to respond to his concerns. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) talked about the hotbed of crime that is his constituency, and about the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. We have concerns about child protection and the NCA, which
	we will explore further. We are happy to give support to much of the Bill and we will not vote against it on Second Reading.
	On self-defence, there is agreement across the House that a victim of burglary, who is compelled in traumatic circumstances to use force for their own protection, should be protected in law. Burglary is a terrible and invasive crime. Victims must have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones, and know that the law is on their side. The Labour Government changed the law to give that support to victims of burglary. In 2008, Labour gave victims the right to use “reasonable force” to defend their homes. That is not “reasonable force” as decided by a risk assessment; it is force that, as the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers put it, is
	“what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment”.
	The current law provides a complete defence for those using reasonable force in self-defence or the defence of their loved ones or property, and according to the Director of Public Prosecutions it works very well.

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Lady cites the CPS, but what does she have to say about the fact that at least four Metropolitan Police Commissioners, including the present one, believe that the law should be strengthened and enhanced?

Jenny Chapman: As I was about to say, we are ready and willing to engage with the Government on any proposals they have that might further improve the law. We want to see the system work as best it can for victims of crime and, of course, to see justice done in every case. However, concerns have been expressed by many outside this place, and these need answering. The Government need to assure the public that the change does not add confusion and explain exactly how it adds protection. The line between “disproportionate” and “grossly disproportionate” is still unclear.
	While we are talking about how people protect themselves during a burglary, we should be just as keen to discuss how we punish a burglary or prevent it in the first place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has uncovered disturbing statistics about some of the sentences being handed to burglars with strings of previous convictions. The Government are introducing a number of measures in the Bill on community sentencing and the use of measures such as tagging. We need to ensure that they are used appropriately. When the Bill was introduced in the other place, it included, at the end of part 2, a rather vague clause that promised the Secretary of State for Justice scope to do what he pleased in the area of community sentencing. It is therefore welcome that, after a wait, we find that what pleases the Secretary of State has been laid out in schedule 15 for debate in this House. We welcome the inclusion of proposals permitting the extended and earlier use of restorative justice. Restorative justice is an effective tool that can do a lot to improve the experience of our justice system and what it offers victims of crime. There are questions that need to be answered on the details, however. How, where, by whom and how uniformly will restorative justice be provided?
	There is much that we agree on. In his foreword to the long anticipated response to the Government’s consultation on community sentences, the Secretary of State states
	that, in order to be both “credible and effective”, community sentences need to strike a balance between punishing an offender for their wrongdoing and rehabilitating them to prevent a repeat offence. He also rightly notes that the public reserve some concerns about community sentences. The ambition of improving public safety and public confidence is strongly welcomed and shared across this House. In order to be “credible and effective”, however, the Secretary of State needs to get this right. The Government say they want all community sentences to include a punitive element, unless there are exceptional circumstances. We support the premise, but two questions arise: what counts as a “punitive element”, and what counts as “exceptional circumstances”? Until we hear the answers to those questions, we will not know whether there is anything new in the Government’s plan or whether the change is nothing more than window dressing.
	On the extended use of tagging, we do not want this used inappropriately as a cheap alternative to prison for those who should be behind bars. If the public are to find such sentences credible, they need to be certain that they will be used with great discretion and only when wholly appropriate. I note that in 2011, eight adults convicted of rape and hundreds convicted of serious violent offences were given community sentences. It is also timely to mention the point that the public need to have faith that those supervised in the community rather than in prison are being expertly and safely supervised. This is an area where—amidst cancelled pilots and detail-light plans for managing offenders’ risk—we find some cause for concern. We look forward to exploring that further in Committee. In particular, I look forward to examining in more depth the Government’s intentions on provision in the community for female offenders. This side of the House also strongly supports the provisions in schedule 13 that seek to facilitate greater diversity in judicial appointments.
	There is much that we agree with in the Bill and we will not vote against it on Second Reading.

Damian Green: I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to what has been a wide-ranging debate—irrespective of whether they did so at normal speed or, as in the case of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), at turbo-charge speed.
	As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary noted when she opened the debate, we need to do more to protect the public against serious and organised crime, and to improve further the efficiency responsiveness and transparency of the justice system. I welcome the broad support of a number of provisions from all sides, including from the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) who wound up the debate for the Opposition.
	In establishing the National Crime Agency as a key objective of the Bill, it also brings forward, as we have heard today, many other noteworthy reforms. The package of court and justice reforms introduced in part 2 will deliver a swifter, more open and effective courts and tribunal system while improving judicial diversity and establishing a new tool to tackle economic crime—namely, deferred prosecution agreements. For that work, the House should pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier).
	In many instances, these reforms will have a real and meaningful impact on those who use the court and justice system. For example, the establishment of a single family court will make the court system more accessible and less confusing for families who come into contact with it.
	We are also determined to improve the public’s confidence and understanding of the criminal justice system. That is why this Bill introduces measures that require courts to include a punitive element in every community order for the first time. This will help bring community orders into line with other sentences such as fines and custody where it is clear that punishment is a key purpose of the sentence.
	Furthermore, the introduction of court broadcasting, initially in the Court of Appeal, will help to demystify the justice system. Justice must be done and seen to be done if it is to command full public confidence.

Alan Beith: Can the Minister give us any clue as to how we know what constitutes a punitive element in a community sentence?

Damian Green: I think those receiving the sentence will know. I cannot set out the details, because that is for the courts. Anything that requires the deprivation of liberty at a particular time or the performance of a task at a certain time can contribute to the punitive element of a sentence.
	Let me move on to deal with some of the detailed points raised during the course of the debate.

Jack Straw: rose—

Damian Green: I suspect I will not be able to deal with them all—in fact, I certainly will not be able to do so, but I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Jack Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain his train of thought when he says that demystifying what happens in the courts will automatically lead to a rise of public confidence in them?

Damian Green: As a former Lord Chancellor, as well as a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman will surely wish to join me in paying tribute to the judiciary, who will be the first people to be televised giving verdicts in the high courts. I am sure he will agree that that will help to explain the decisions they come to.
	Returning to detailed points in the debate, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) congratulated the Government on clause 38. Having been a Member of the House for 15 years, I have to say that this is the first time I have ever heard him do so for any Government, and I look forward to many more such occasions in the coming months and years.

Edward Leigh: Don’t get too excited.

Damian Green: As my hon. Friend says, I should not get too excited.
	The shadow Home Secretary asked how the NCA would work with police and crime commissioners. The PCCs have a national role in tackling the sort of serious and organised crime whose pernicious effects are felt in
	every community in every street in the UK. They will be key strategic partners for the NCA. Keith Bristow has already spoken with the newly elected commissioners as part of the central PCC briefing that the Home Secretary hosted in November. He and the wider NCA will obviously continue to engage with them, including through the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners.
	The right hon. Lady raised the issue of the tasking element, as did many other Members. She asked whether direct tasking by the NCA director general would cut across the authority of police and crime commissioners. I do not believe that there will be any conflict. Fighting serious and organised crime is a shared concern of the NCA and the PCCs. Tasking by the NCA will be used to fight the kind of cross-boundary serious and organised crime that is more difficult for individual forces to tackle, and to which PCCs must already have regard under the strategy policing requirement to which they, as well as just chief constables, must sign up.
	The right hon. Lady also asked about the framework document. It will be a joint statement of intent by the Home Secretary and the director general of the NCA, setting out how they will work together. The final NCA framework document cannot be produced until after Royal Assent; it will be published and laid before Parliament in due course.
	There was much discussion of the self-defence clause. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) referred to it, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). We are not changing the fundamental premise that people can use only force that is reasonable in the circumstances as they believe them to be. What we are saying is that when a person is attacked by an intruder in his or her home, in the light of all the terror that that brings—greater, probably, than the emotions that would be aroused in someone defending commercial premises—it may be reasonable for that person to use a greater degree of force than is permitted by the current law. Householders should not be treated as criminals if they have used force that was reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be, even if that force turns out to be disproportionate when viewed in the cold light of day.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) asked why the provision was limited to householders. It is attacks by intruders in the home that cause the greatest public concern. A home is supposed to be a haven, a refuge, a place where people have every right to feel safe, and that is why we believe that householders deserve special protection.
	I am grateful to many Members, including the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for their support for the restorative justice proposals. A number of interesting details emerged, which I shall certainly consider. I share the desire of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady—and, I think, of the wider House—to develop the idea of restorative justice so that it becomes much more important to the way in which we continue to cut crime and prevent reoffending. I know that it is one of the key elements that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary wants to introduce in order to continue our success in that regard.
	The right hon. Members for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and for Blackburn (Mr Straw), among others, mentioned family visit visas. The current family visit visa appeal right no longer serves its intended purpose. The appeal right for visitors is an anomaly: no other types of visit visa, such as business and tourist visas, attract the full right of appeal. People who are refused visit visas may reapply as many times as they like, and may provide further information in support of their applications. The expenditure on family visit visa appeals constitutes a disproportionate use of taxpayer funding for the benefit being sought. Removing the full right of appeal from family visitors will save £107 million over the 10 years following enactment.
	Inevitably, questions were asked about the efficiency of the system. Of course the system can always be improved. In 2011, however, 79% of family visit visa applications were granted at the initial decision-making stage, 2% were granted as a result of an allowed appeal, and a further 2% were granted after entry clearance manager reviews following the receipt of appeals. That demonstrates that the majority of people are able to follow the application process, and are successful.
	I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on his successful campaign following the tragic incident of drug-driving and its effects in his constituency. He asked various questions. We aim to improve any devices that meet the requirements for testing at a time as near as possible to the commencement of the new offence, which is planned for 2014. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) asked about medically unfit drivers; I am happy to tell her that that specific issue will be the focus of a meeting tomorrow.
	I look forward to exploring those and other issues in Committee, along with the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who is the Minister responsible for crime prevention. I believe that the Bill will greatly enhance the national response to serious and organised crime, while delivering a swifter, more transparent and more effective courts and tribunals system, and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14 February.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Damian Green.)
	Question agreed to.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(1) expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or a government department by virtue of the Act,
	(2) expenditure incurred in making payments to persons who select judges or who select selectors of judges, and
	(3) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Damian Green.)
	Question agreed to.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
	(1) the imposition, on persons liable to pay sums adjudged to be paid by a conviction or treated as sums adjudged to be paid by a conviction, of liability to pay amounts in respect of costs of collecting sums of that kind,
	(2) the charging of court fees by virtue of the Act,
	(3) charging by the National Crime Agency for the provision of services or facilities,
	(4) provision about functions in relation to regulation of bailiffs and enforcement agents, and
	(5) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Damian Green.)
	Question agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Charging Orders

That the draft Charging Orders (Orders for Sale: Financial Thresholds) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 26 November 2012, be approved.—(Nicky Morgan.)
	Question put.
	The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday.

Finance and Services

Ordered,
	That Mr Shailesh Vara be discharged from the Finance and Services Committee and Mr Greg Knight be added.—(Anne Milton, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

VASCULAR SERVICES (WYCOMBE HOSPITAL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nicky Morgan.)

Mr Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) to present his case on behalf of his constituents, may I appeal to Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, affording the same courtesy to the hon. Member that they would wish to be extended to them in comparable circumstances?

Steven Baker: I am most grateful to you for that, Mr Speaker. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for being here at this hour to discuss vascular services in Wycombe hospital, as I know he has thought carefully about the subject. It is a subject that will be of interest to your constituents, Mr Speaker, so I am glad to see you in the Chair, and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), a number of whose constituents campaign vigorously on the issue, so I am glad to see him here supporting this case. The nub of the issue is that we in Wycombe have been told repeatedly that it is in our interests for hospital services to be centralised away. There is today a clear momentum to centralise vascular services for the Thames Valley in Oxford, yet Wycombe enjoys better results and Oxford has been subject to a range of criticisms, as I shall set out.
	We need to look at the historical context to understand why the opposition to what is happening is so vociferous. Wycombe hospital is in a position perhaps typical of a generation of district general hospitals: we lost our accident and emergency unit; we lost consultant-led maternity, retaining a midwife-led unit as a concession; we lost paediatrics; and in 2012 the emergency medical centre—the EMC—was downgraded to a minor injuries unit, repeating much of the local outcry about the loss of the accident and emergency unit. At each stage, campaigners expressed fears that the withdrawal of services would lead eventually to the closure of the hospital. At each stage, those fears were vigorously stoked by dissenting voices among the affected medical staff. At each stage, the NHS management no less vigorously denied that such an outcome could ever occur, and after each stage the NHS management went on to propose further service withdrawals. It is no wonder so many local people fear closure.
	In Wycombe, we do have the Buckinghamshire units for cardiology and stroke, which treat two of the biggest killers, but, scandalously, the minor injuries unit recently failed to admit a lady who arrived with suspected heart trouble—the Minister will recall taking my question in the House on that occasion. It is now being suggested by some clinicians, specifically those within the vascular unit at Wycombe, that losing vascular services at the hospital could threaten those excellent services we have left.
	I feel sure that the Minister will appreciate the excruciating sensitivity of this issue. The long, grinding decline of our hospital has sown anger, despair and cynicism, not least because the public have come to appreciate that NHS consultations seem to be exercises in manufacturing consent—or perhaps the appearance of consent—rather than providing democratic accountability and control.
	The recent “Better Healthcare in Bucks” consultation on the downgrade of the EMC mentioned vascular services, supporting the view that vascular should remain in Wycombe until a review in 2014. We are now approaching that review and a series of leaked documents has shown two important points: first, vascular care in Wycombe is superior to that in Oxford; and, secondly, the transfer of vascular services to Oxford is essentially a done deal.
	Let us consider how vascular services have changed, because I know that it has affected many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. Diseases of the arteries and veins used to be treated by surgery only, but problems are now reached via other blood vessels using techniques known as interventional radiology. Vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists support cardiology, cardiac surgery, stroke and other disciplines. The new vascular specialty was approved by Parliament in March 2012. Vascular is now listed as a specialty on the General Medical Council website, although the approved curriculum and assessment system was not available today. There is also a Vascular Society.
	According to the authors of a report on the centralisation of vascular services in Oxford,
	“the advent of separate specialty status for vascular surgery together with speciality commissioning plans for 2013 onwards…will reduce the number of hospitals providing vascular surgery to about 50 in England and Wales”
	from 150, and
	“commissioners will not purchase arterial interventions except from arterial centres.”
	I think that is why the issue has affected so many of my colleagues.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In north Lancashire, the situation is similar. It is perhaps not the policy that is the problem but the implementation of it, because if it is implemented some of my constituents, particularly in rural areas, will face transport times of more than one and a half hours. The national target for improvement is just one hour, which is why, unfortunately, I have to support my local hospital, the Royal Lancaster infirmary, which has reached the point of considering taking the implementation of the policy to judicial review.

Steven Baker: My hon. Friend raises an important point about transport, which will be an issue for many of our constituents, not least because they will not have cars.
	People in need of vascular care will include those with abdominal aortic aneurysms, a life-threatening weakness of the main artery that must be repaired, and those who have had strokes or mini-strokes—transient ischaemic attacks. After a stroke, drug are administered immediately, but they need to be followed up with a procedure to clear the carotid artery, called a carotid endarterectomy or, mercifully, a CEA. Other people requiring care will include those with poor blood supply, including smokers and diabetics, who might endure serious complications that might even lead to amputation.
	Wycombe hospital provides the full range of services. It is proposed to move them all to Oxford university hospitals on the basis that the present arrangements are
	“not sustainable”, but I have yet to see evidence that supports that assertion. Leaked documents suggest that Oxford provides worse outcomes and is struggling to be ready.

Tim Farron: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on securing the debate. Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), in the north-west the number of units will go down from four to three. Folks in Morecambe bay will no longer be able to go to Lancaster but will have to go to Carlisle, Blackburn or Preston. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) agree that the majority of vascular surgery these days is not elective but acute, following road traffic trauma and incidents such as coronary emergencies? We are talking not about elective surgery but about acute emergency provision, so it is vital that the services are close at hand.

Steven Baker: My hon. Friend is possibly inviting me to stray beyond my expertise, but perhaps the Minister can deal with that point. The concern in Wycombe is about elective treatment of aneurysms, and particularly the treatment that goes with stroke services. The key concern is that it is an excellent service that will be degraded if it is moved to Oxford, according to the clinical evidence.
	I am grateful to Dr Annet Gamell, chief clinical officer of the Chiltern clinical commissioning group. She has given me a clear explanation of the position in Buckinghamshire, which is that things are waiting on the outcome of the review in 2014. Once a new theatre is open at Oxford, it is proposed that all complex elective vascular surgery will go there. It is planned that outpatient and diagnostic services will remain at Wycombe. CEA services would be subject to review in 2014, and I understand from Dr Gammell that the group would support moving CEAs to Oxford only if results indicated that patients would benefit from it. The Chiltern clinical commissioning group would take into account the impact of such moves on other services. Dr Gammell points out that if it is agreed to transfer CEAs to Oxford, there would be another local consultation, but on the basis of recent experience it is not clear to me what end that consultation would serve. The decision would have been made and it is clear that there is vast momentum to take services in that direction, despite the clinical evidence.
	The key performance indicators for the south central cardio-vascular network show that in the first two quarters of the 2012-13 reporting year, Wycombe performed 17 aneurism repairs and Oxford 16. Wycombe carried out 31 carotid endarterectomies to Oxford’s 47. Almost half of patient records at Oxford did not provide the dates of patients’ symptoms. Eighty per cent. of CEA patients at Wycombe received the procedure within two weeks of referral. At Oxford, the figure was just 23%, although patients seem to have received their treatment within 48 hours of symptoms. At Wycombe, 58% of patients were treated within 48 hours. Oxford achieved a ratio of total vascular interventions to amputations of 4.55:1, whereas at Wycombe the ratio in the period was 8:1, which shows a considerably greater degree of success in maintaining people’s limbs in very difficult circumstances.
	The clear clinical evidence in that period is that Wycombe outperforms Oxford, and it does so with fewer clinical staff. All this is not mentioned in the
	“Oxford University Hospitals Review of Phase 1 of the Centralisation of Vascular services”, which has been sent to me under cover of a letter dated 12 August from the chief executive of NHS Berkshire. It was among a number of documents leaked to me. The report describes the resignation of a vascular consultant, Mr Peter Rutter, following significant difficulties associated with the move from Wexham Park to Oxford. Those difficulties including antiquated theatre instruments, poor quality theatre lighting and patient safety issues.
	Mr Rutter observed:
	“Vascular surgery is not very important in Oxford and would take 5 years to bring up to standard.”
	He also said that vascular had no champion at Oxford, which is confirmed in other documents. Other remarks in the review include, for example,
	“Many outlying district general hospitals have better endovascular facilities”,
	“Oxford is not a modern endovascular hospital”
	and
	“Oxford has no culture of multidisciplinary working”,
	which is essential when vascular supports those other specialties. Furthermore,
	“Little thought had been given to the effect on Interventional Radiology in DGHs”
	and very worryingly, an
	“Oxford senior surgeon threatened to make Bucks vascular surgeons redundant unless they toed the line.”
	A comment in the review implies that Wycombe’s excellent interventional radiologists would join Oxford University Hospitals only if CEA and bypass surgery stayed at Wycombe, which has been rejected. Presumably, these valuable experts who make the excellent service possible will resign and go elsewhere.
	In summarising, the review explains that the impression had been given that OUH had not properly thought through the implications of centralisation. In discussing theatre upgrades, it concludes that
	“there remain concerns about the quality of lighting, ventilation, anaesthetic facilities and sterility.”
	I am only a humble aerospace and software engineer, but it seems to me that these are fairly basic concerns. Despite all this, the review clearly states:
	“It will not be possible for carotid surgery to remain in Wycombe as CE and CAS will not be commissioned from Wycombe beyond 2013.”
	Surely this is a matter for the commissioners.
	The reviewers are clear that it is not viable for Wycombe to keep carotid surgery and bypass, but they do not state the evidence for their assertion beyond the new status of vascular as its own specialty. Before making recommendations, the review says:
	“OUH practices Vascular Surgery more like a DGH than an important Teaching Hospital. Several of the surrounding DGHs, currently being centralised into Oxford, probably provide a better endovascular service.
	Vascular surgery at OUH seems to be safe but has not developed in the way that it has in other hospitals in the United Kingdom. It seems to be positioned about ten to fifteen years behind the best.”
	Notwithstanding the evidence of superior performance at Wycombe and shortcomings at Oxford, the review insists that vascular services must transfer, ultimately on the basis that it is inevitable that vascular services will be co-located alongside Oxford’s major trauma unit. That is a blatant rejection of the principle that is constantly used to justify centralising services away:
	clear clinical evidence. All the time that Wycombe provides better care and the team can provide it sustainably, in its opinion, and while local commissioners are prepared to buy it, why surrender to Oxford’s desire to be the Thames valley super-hospital, whatever the cost to patients?
	Any responsible Member would admit that the trend in health care is towards specialisation. When my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) was describing his Thames valley super-hospital proposal in Marlow, he said that any politician who claimed that they could restore A and E to a district general hospital would be a liar. I am grateful that I have not fallen into that trap, but it illustrates a point. Politicians are accountable to their electorates and businessmen are accountable to their customers, but managers and clinicians in the NHS who follow rules and guidelines seem to account seriously only to one another and, significantly, to do so on the basis of who carries the greatest authority through prestige.
	In the midst of all that, senior NHS executives keep circulating. Stewart George and Fred Hucker—irrespective of their individual merits—who chaired the Bucks and Oxfordshire PCTs, became joint chairmen of the cluster. Mr George is now moving to the CCG, and Mr Hucker to Buckinghamshire hospitals trust. A new era of openness, accountability and genuine public involvement seems unlikely, and continuity seems a dreary inevitability, but all that ought not to be.
	Vascular services in the Thames valley appear to be not so much sleepwalking into disaster as positively driving towards it. Vascular services in Wycombe are not some ditch and gatepost operation to be salvaged by the great Oxford University hospitals, as Wycombe outperforms them with a smaller team. In this regard, it is the John Radcliffe that needs saving.
	Let me ask the Minister some specific questions. Is the Chiltern CCG able to insist that it will purchase vascular surgery from the Bucks health care trust at Wycombe despite national guidelines? What are the roles and authority of the NHS Commissioning Board, the local health and wellbeing board and the south central vascular network? Crucially, has the elevation of vascular surgery out of general surgery and into a specialisation of its own led to such things as turf wars, demarcation disputes and office politics? What formal influence are locally elected representatives—councillors and MPs—supposed to have?
	Wycombe has had its own hospital since 1875. The current hospital was not founded by the NHS; it was built in 1923 with donations from local people, which were mostly given in pennies, as a memorial to the men we lost in the great war. The public are therefore right to be incandescent with rage at changes that appear to be driven by remote sectional interests, not local patient care.
	Recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
	“I need to say this to all managers: you will be held responsible for the care in your establishments. You wouldn’t expect to keep your job if you lost control of your finances. Well don’t expect to keep it if you lose control of your care.”
	What is needed is real accountability. Let us get health under the control of the people who pay for it and start by keeping vascular at Wycombe for all the time that that remains in patients’ best interests.

Daniel Poulter: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on securing the debate and raising issues that are pertinent not only to his constituents but to those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who has been sitting next to me on the Front Bench listening to the debate and who shares a number of my hon. Friend’s concerns.
	Before I discuss the substantive points about Wycombe, I should address my hon. Friend’s point about failing management in the NHS. He is right that there is a tendency to recycle failing managers in the NHS, and I am sure that the House will return to that point when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responds to the concerns raised in the Mid Staffordshire inquiry, following the Department’s receipt of the report.
	It is worth paying tribute to the dedicated health care workers in Wycombe and the surrounding areas of Buckinghamshire, because my hon. Friend has a number of excellent clinicians. He highlighted several local successes in delivering high-quality care through vascular surgery, and I know that there are good outcomes locally in specialties such as carotid endarterectomy. He has many excellent doctors and nurses and other front-line health care professionals, and also some very good managers, who have the best interests of their patients at heart and deliver high-quality health care outcomes for local patients on a daily basis, 365 days a year.
	My hon. Friend rightly highlighted some local concerns about the ongoing loss of services at Wycombe hospital, and it is worth reiterating some of his words. He said that the hospital had lost A and E, consultant-led maternity—retaining a midwifery-led unit as a concession —and paediatrics, and this year the emergency medical centre was downgraded to a minor injuries unit, resulting in a repeat of much of the local outcry at the loss of A and E, and now he has highlighted eloquently the concerns over the potential loss of some of the vascular services at the hospital.
	It is worth pointing out that I was reassured today before coming to the debate by local health care commissioners in the Wycombe area that there is a strong future for Wycombe hospital. There is no threat of the hospital being downgraded to the point of closure. Commissioners today reassured me—and I hope that this reassures my hon. Friend—that in many areas Wycombe provides a very good site further to develop health care services the better to meet the needs of the local population. It is an excellent satellite site, combined with Stoke Mandeville, for providing high-quality, close-to-home health care. From discussions that I have had, I believe that there may be the possibility of improving further some of the cardiac care that is offered.
	I come specifically to the issues that my hon. Friend raised about vascular services, which are particularly important in Wycombe, which has a large Asian population, among whom, as we all know, there is a higher rate of cardiovascular disease. It has a higher rate of diabetes and many cardiovascular illnesses. My hon. Friend highlighted eloquently the number of local vascular services provided, and particularly referred to amputation services. We know that one of the complications of vascular disease and diabetes is the higher rates of
	amputation among some patients. It is quite right that he wants to make sure that high-quality services are provided locally to meet the established need for patients who require vascular services, and that those patients have a holistic service that looks not just at their immediate medical needs but provides high-quality surgical care.
	We know that as lifestyles, society and medicine change, the NHS must continually adapt. The NHS has always had to respond to patients’ changing expectations and to advances in technology. When we do change and reconfigure services, it must be about modernising facilities and improving the delivery of high-quality patient care. In that context, it is also important that while we have to recognise that some services are better provided in larger centres of care— for example, the John Radcliffe centre, which can offer super-specialist services—where the clinical outcomes for patients are better, we must also provide high-quality local services, particularly for older people. We know that the majority of vascular patients often fall into an older age demographic, and it is important that when there is any service reconfiguration, those day-to-day outpatient clinics for vascular patients are maintained locally. I am reassured that in the potential reconfiguration, bread-and-butter outpatient clinics and continuity of care for vascular patients will be maintained.
	The Government are also clear that the reconfiguration of front-line health services is a matter for the local NHS. Services should be tailored to meet the needs of local people, and the four tests laid down in 2010 by the previous Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), require that local reconfiguration plans demonstrate support from GP commissioners, strengthened public and patient engagement, clarity on the clinical evidence base and support for patient choice. If my hon. Friend is worried that these tests have not been met in the local reconfiguration, he has the opportunity directly to challenge them or to ask the local health scrutiny committee to refer them to the Secretary of State for review.

Tim Farron: The Minister rightly says that the NHS reforms allow local councillors to vote to refer such matters to Ministers. In my area of Morecambe bay, that opportunity comes on 22 January. Will he assure councillors that Ministers will take such referrals very seriously and look into them with great rigour?

Daniel Poulter: Yes. I assure my hon. Friend that when a referral is made by a local overview and scrutiny panel the Secretary of State will look at it and decide whether to refer it to the independent reconfiguration panel. That is often the decision that is made in these cases, but it lies initially with the Secretary of State, who will then have to consider whether to refer it. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend further to outline these steps if that would be helpful.
	It is worth highlighting the national parameters that are being set for the delivery of good vascular surgery by the NHS Commissioning Board, which takes over full responsibility for commissioning from April this year. The board published a draft national service specification for vascular surgery for consultation. The consultation commenced in December 2012 and will conclude on 25 January 2013. It identifies the service model, work force and infrastructure required of a vascular centre. It says:
	“There are two service models emerging which enable sustainable delivery of the required infrastructure, patient volumes, and improved clinical outcomes. Both models are based on the concept of a network of providers working together to deliver comprehensive patient care pathways centralising where necessary and continuing to provide some services in local settings…One provider network model has only two levels of care: all elective and emergency arterial vascular care centralised in a single centre with outpatient assessment, diagnostics and vascular consultations undertaken in the centre and local hospitals.
	The alternative network model has three levels of care: all elective and emergency arterial care provided in a single centre linked to some neighbouring hospitals which would provide non arterial vascular care and with outpatient assessment, diagnostics and vascular consultations undertaken in these and other local hospitals. All Trusts that provide a vascular service must belong to a vascular provider network.”
	In essence, this is about making sure that we deliver high-quality vascular care. There are two or three circumstances in which someone would require vascular care. First, there is emergency care—for example, when there is a road traffic accident, or when someone has a leaking aortic aneurysm, which is a very severe and potentially life-threatening emergency. We know from medical data that such service provided in an emergency is much better provided in a specialist centre—an acute setting such as the John Radcliffe, which would be the hub and the central focus. There is also good evidence that trauma care in any setting, including the requirement for neurological specialists potentially to be involved, is better served in a specialist trauma centre. A specialist centre provides better care in emergencies.
	At the same time, it is clear from those models that there can also be a strong role for other hospitals as satellites of the central hub at the John Radcliffe. My hon. Friend clearly made the case for the high-quality outcomes at Wycombe hospital for carotid endarterectomies and other vascular services. I would suggest that there is
	a role for challenging local commissioners if they wished to remove some elective procedures from Wycombe when there is a case that they can still be delivered in a high-quality manner and to a good standard for patients.

Steven Baker: I apologise for intervening on the Minister when there is so little time left, but I can see the campaigners leaping up and down and saying that the clinical evidence in this case is that Wycombe is doing better than Oxford on aneurism repair.

Daniel Poulter: The evidence on the outcomes of patients from many trials does stack up over a period of time. Generally speaking, all surgeons need to do a minimum number of procedures in order to maintain regular competency, and to maintain continually high and good outcomes for patients when carrying out aneurism repair. That is the reason for the service reconfiguration. The argument can be made, as my hon. Friend has done, that Wycombe should continue to provide those services, but we know that the national data and best evidence point to the fact that the services are best provided at specialist centres.
	However, there is a good case for my hon. Friend to take forward to the local commissioners about ensuring that more of those elective procedures and elective amputations remain local, and I am sure that he will do that. I am sure that he will also want to talk to his local health scrutiny committee to ensure that it refers cases to the Secretary of State for review, if required. I thank him once again for raising the matter in the debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.